I can only conclude that you value our observations of the world higher than God’s revelation about the world.
Hmmm
Too simpliste! I value the observational capacity of a group of people who agree on process and method, who peer review constantly. Who rely on evidence over opinion. Who, as a group, admit to not knowing and seek to recitfy this case. Who decide that the nearest they can get to actually “knowing” is “Theory” implying doubt.
But theology is about opinions and traditions (not only of dogma but also of approach) and knowing. And these structures range from belief based on evidence (which I like) to belief based on ... well just the words. Trouble is, there are plenty of groups who are dead certain that their belief is right and those at variance are dead wrong. The arguement has been put on this thread that we should and could dispense with external reference points.
That leaves me to read and make up my own mind, based on text alone, to assume that the Judeo concept of history is the same as the one I entertain now.
That their belief about “truth” is the same as the heavily Greeek based one I have in my culture is the same.
Just on the text!
I say nonsense!
I say there are too many assumptions being made and I am not equal to the task of enjoining them.
I say if the evidence is contradictory then the subject requires review. You say this is about doubt. I say it is about faith. Staring with faith in a God who refuses to fit with any neat and tidy concept I choose to throw at Him, including ones I might decide are based in scripture.
I say doubt is close kin to faith and evidence helps to clarify the gaps.
YECS says the evidence is wrong, the interpretation is wrong, the attitude is wrong. The last thing it will do is assume it is wrong. I say the last thing because if it (as a movement) did so honestly it would collapse into mist and not be missed.
Dannii -
We need a new word for ‘science’ that doesn’t use the scientific method.
Bearing in mind that 7 or more centruies ago theology was known as the queen of the sciences, I think the word ‘science’ has a longer pedigree than the modern scientific method. Perhaps we need to come up with a new word for the latter!
I say nonsense!
I say there are too many assumptions being made and I am not equal to the task of enjoining them.
I say if the evidence is contradictory then the subject requires review. You say this is about doubt. I say it is about faith. Staring with faith in a God who refuses to fit with any neat and tidy concept I choose to throw at Him, including ones I might decide are based in scripture.
I say doubt is close kin to faith and evidence helps to clarify the gaps.
I agree. The evidence I’ve seen points to apparent age, and as revolting as it seems, I’ve come to accept that.
YECS says the evidence is wrong, the interpretation is wrong, the attitude is wrong. The last thing it will do is assume it is wrong. I say the last thing because if it (as a movement) did so honestly it would collapse into mist and not be missed.
Not quite, YECSs say the evidence is evidence and that interpretations vary. Those who interpret the evidence as indicating long ages must first assume that nothing supernatural and miraculous has occured. To a Christian who believes in a miracle-working God this assumption is only fair when the Bible doesn’t indicate that God has worked supernaturally, and I think that it says quite clearly that creation was supernatural.
Could you answer my question in my last post?
Can we take it back to scripture? Do you know of any passage that says if God tells us about something, that he will never make it appear otherwise?
Bob says:
Bearing in mind that 7 or more centruies ago theology was known as the queen of the sciences, I think the word ‘science’ has a longer pedigree than the modern scientific method. Perhaps we need to come up with a new word for the latter!
This could work, except that it still has the problem we currently face, that many people are using the word science for observations not made through the scientific method, and thereby portraying and implying it carries the authority and certainty of scientific method science.
Can we take it back to scripture? Do you know of any passage that says if God tells us about something, that he will never make it appear otherwise?
No. None I can think of. But since He is Truth and in Him there is no lie, I am assuming He isn’t i) deliberately putting stumbling blocks in our way (the main one that springs to my mind is - we can see stars- if we can see stars whose distances are greater than the 6-10,000 years YECS claims then He has set before us a lie every night. That star I look at was never in that spot… ever)
and ii) There would have been clearer, no clear evidence that things happened ratehr suddenly, and that there is clear evidence of a world wide flood and that our genetics and the fossil layers would indicate nothing like evolution. Instead we’d find evidence of man and dinosaur hanging around together. No pre existing Pre Cambrian layer of mini things without the big ones. You know, evidence.
and
to be frank, if the Bible was a science text book or source, the world would be flat.
No. None I can think of. But since He is Truth and in Him there is no lie, I am assuming He isn’t i) deliberately putting stumbling blocks in our way (the main one that springs to my mind is - we can see stars- if we can see stars whose distances are greater than the 6-10,000 years YECS claims then He has set before us a lie every night. That star I look at was never in that spot… ever)
As I’ve said before, it’s only misleading if you assume beforehand that all is as it seems, and that nothing supernatural has occurred.
Also, does the Hebrew for star actually mean what we mean by it (a big burning ball of gas) or does it mean something less specific (like a light in the sky)? I think that both planets and comets were considered stars, so why not other lights in the sky too?
and ii) There would have been clearer, no clear evidence that things happened ratehr suddenly, and that there is clear evidence of a world wide flood and that our genetics and the fossil layers would indicate nothing like evolution. Instead we’d find evidence of man and dinosaur hanging around together. No pre existing Pre Cambrian layer of mini things without the big ones. You know, evidence.
Well many consider that the billions of dead things laid down in watery muddy layers is clear evidence for a world wide flood. The existence of animals fossilised during labour shows that the sediments were laid very quickly, and St Helens and the rest show how quick it really can be…
to be frank, if the Bible was a science text book or source, the world would be flat.
That’s just silly. My text books all have figurative language and analogies.
That’s just silly. My text books all have figurative language and analogies.
No, not silly. The early readers of scripture understood their world to be flat. The Bible gave em that picture. We know differently- but only because we paid heed to evidence.
Well many consider that the billions of dead things laid down in watery muddy layers is clear evidence for a world wide flood. The existence of animals fossilised during labour shows that the sediments were laid very quickly, and St Helens and the rest show how quick it really can be…
Actually no. The evidence is not there for a worldwide flood.
The layers of dead thangs decided to be remarkably consistent about the order of them thangs.
Didn’t behave like a flood/ cataclysm as we would know it. Maybe a miracle made the dead things settle by type in order instead of by say, body mass or shape.
But that would mean that God did it, making Him be a bit Loki or Coyote. I don’t think I like the idea of a Trickster God.
Oh, and I know that there are oodles of YECS things on whatever answersingenesis call themselves this week- but they and their ilk have a cred rating of zero. What’s a feller to do?
No, not silly. The early readers of scripture understood their world to be flat. The Bible gave em that picture. We know differently- but only because we paid heed to evidence.
How exactly do you know this??
Oh, and I know that there are oodles of YECS things on whatever answersingenesis call themselves this week- but they and their ilk have a cred rating of zero. What’s a feller to do?
Decide for himself on the nature of science, and how useful it is in the face of the supernatural.
Let’s keep the tone respectful. No one is won over (in either direction) by hostility.
On the semantics of ‘science’, Ken’s definition may be one popular way of using the word, but its meaning is much broader than that. The root meaning is that of ‘knowing’ or ‘knowledge’. Hence we describe God as omniscient (all-knowing).
Science means “a systematical and logical look at why things happen or work”.
Science is not opposed to what God has said, and how He loves us, and how He wants to save us from all kinds of error.
So back off, OK? lol
This is all true.
There is another meaning of the word science, restricted to that which is found with the scientific method. It is this meaning which carries authority and an understanding of certainty, and which gets certain theories labled pseudo-science etc.
There are many fields which are well-respected but which do not do use the scientific method, such as forensic science. If we are to be honest we have to recognise that forensics does not have the authority of, say Newton’s laws, and a large part of that is because forensics cannot use the scientific method. (Sure certain parts of it can, but as a whole it can’t. You can’t repeat a murder, or any past event in way that could be used by the scientific method.)
And I’d argue that it’s the same for the science which argues for a old earth etc. Ignoring some of the problems in dating methods (like radiocarbon in diamonds) all that the scientific method can tell you are element ratios. Ages and dates must be extrapolated based on various assumptions which may or may not be fair. Most of the calibration for dating is also similarly circular…
the authority and certainty of scientific method science.
I must say that I question the attribution of a greater authority to the results of research using the scientific method than, say, the results of historical research, or, to use your own example, that of forensic science. Granted, there is a different kind of certainty attached to the scientific method, as there is also to mathematical proofs. But a greater certainty? I’m not so sure (and perhaps you are not even saying so - but I wanted to identify the issue anyway). What the scientific method tells us is that, based on previous observations, we have an expectation that A will result in B. The more this theory has been tested, the stronger and more reasonable the expectation is. But it is never truly certain. Indeed, when we get a result that doesn’t conform to the expectation, we modify the theory.
Anyway, the point of all this is to make sure we don’t attribute too much authority to the scientific method. That’s one of the things (not the only one of course) that has got us into trouble in the first place.
Ken
This is modern scientists defining the word science. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives five definitions of the word, the third and fourth of which are closest to what you have said. What you are giving as the definition of ‘science’ is actually a subset of the word’s broader meaning. I’m not opposed to your definition; I’m just saying that the semantic range of the word is much broader.
Regards,
Bob
But, I am sure that most people here, defending historical biblical theory, refer to the definition listed in my link, when they oppose the scientific/evolution path.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
