|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 1:01:57 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
You create a false dichotomy, implying they (the Bible and science) speak to the same issues. They do not, therefore there is no either-or imperative. On may trust both or distrust both.
OK, to prove to you that science and Biblical doctrine speak on some of the same issues I'll give you an example:
Bible: God created man in His own image.
Science: Man evolved from lower life forms.
Now, since the conclusions of science are in opposition with a doctrine of the Bible, which gets thrown out? And why?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 1:07:47 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7406
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
I think the purpose of science is to never trust the 'conclusions' - we are to be ever skeptical of how a particular theory describes natural phenomena, revising it, testing it, questioning it. That is how science should proceed. That is perhaps my biggest qualm with evolutionists of both the Christian and non-Christian varety - I find in them a significant inability to question evolution, and so judge them as adherents rather than truly viewing evolution from a scientific perspective.
In a similar way, we aren't to blandly accept human notions of Scripture - the noble minded read it for themselves, ask God for understanding, then test the words of those who teach or make theological claims, always understanding that a correct understanding and application of Scripture proves itself through the fruit it bears in people's lives.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 2:01:10 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
You create a false dichotomy, implying they (the Bible and science) speak to the same issues. They do not, therefore there is no either-or imperative. On may trust both or distrust both.
OK, to prove to you that science and Biblical doctrine speak on some of the same issues I'll give you an example:
Bible: God created man in His own image.
Science: Man evolved from lower life forms.
Now, since the conclusions of science are in opposition with a doctrine of the Bible, which gets thrown out? And why?
On what basis do you claim these two propositions are in opposition to each other. I would hold that both are true and not throw out either one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 2:04:02 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
I think the purpose of science is to never trust the 'conclusions' - we are to be ever skeptical of how a particular theory describes natural phenomena, revising it, testing it, questioning it. That is how science should proceed. That is perhaps my biggest qualm with evolutionists of both the Christian and non-Christian varety - I find in them a significant inability to question evolution, and so judge them as adherents rather than truly viewing evolution from a scientific perspective.
I don't see an unwillingness to question evolution. I do see a demand for evidence that puts it in question.
quote:
In a similar way, we aren't to blandly accept human notions of Scripture - the noble minded read it for themselves, ask God for understanding, then test the words of those who teach or make theological claims, always understanding that a correct understanding and application of Scripture proves itself through the fruit it bears in people's lives.
Amen!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 2:10:09 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
You create a false dichotomy, implying they (the Bible and science) speak to the same issues. They do not, therefore there is no either-or imperative. On may trust both or distrust both.
OK, to prove to you that science and Biblical doctrine speak on some of the same issues I'll give you an example:
Bible: God created man in His own image.
Science: Man evolved from lower life forms.
Now, since the conclusions of science are in opposition with a doctrine of the Bible, which gets thrown out? And why?
On what basis do you claim these two propositions are in opposition to each other. I would hold that both are true and not throw out either one.
So... How are those two statements not in opposition? There's 2 different ideas there: creation and evolution - by definition they do not mean the same thing... If you say God created man in His own image AND that man evolved from lower life forms, then it is the image of God that you are bringing into question... What are you saying was meant by that?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 2:11:00 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
You create a false dichotomy, implying they (the Bible and science) speak to the same issues. They do not, therefore there is no either-or imperative. On may trust both or distrust both.
OK, to prove to you that science and Biblical doctrine speak on some of the same issues I'll give you an example:
Bible: God created man in His own image.
Science: Man evolved from lower life forms.
Now, since the conclusions of science are in opposition with a doctrine of the Bible, which gets thrown out? And why?
Again, false dichotomy. One is a religious doctrine, the other scientific. See post #24.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 2:12:30 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7406
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
I don't see an unwillingness to question evolution. I do see a demand for evidence that puts it in question.
Well, that would be one difference in the way we see things; I see plenty that puts it in question.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 2:28:58 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
So... How are those two statements not in opposition? There's 2 different ideas there: creation and evolution - by definition they do not mean the same thing...
No, they do not mean the same thing. But it doesn't follow from that they contradict each other either.
Why do you say they are in opposition?
quote:
If you say God created man in His own image AND that man evolved from lower life forms, then it is the image of God that you are bringing into question...
How so? I don't see any reason why a species' biological history would be a questioning of the image of God referenced to the same creature.
quote:
What are you saying was meant by that?
Ah, well that is a perennial theological topic. Is it conscious self-awareness? Is it the ability to reason? Is it the presence of a moral sense, a conscience? Is it possession of an immortal soul? All of those have been suggested as pertinent to the "image of God".
My personal speculation on the topic is that it is a spiritual awareness of God that permits communication from God to human and vice versa. But I don't claim any special insight on the matter.
All I would say is that no idea of the image of God I have ever heard stands in contradiction to human biological evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 2:57:28 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
No, they do not mean the same thing. But it doesn't follow from that they contradict each other either.
Why do you say they are in opposition?
This will be a little bit off topic, but as this is my thread, I don't mind a deviation for a moment... Maybe it is my understanding of evolution that is throwing a wrench into the cogs. I was never taught evolution in school as I went to a private Christian school while growing up, and I'm generally not interested in it enough for me to take note when science may refine its own views on the matter...
Please tell me: How is the Biblical creation story (both it's origination in Genesis, and as referenced throughout the Bible) not in opposition to a common scientific view of evolution as the "origin of species?"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 3:20:31 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
OK, I just had a thought... If scientists believe that the "big bang" was where everything was reduced to a singularity, and that this singularity was a point where the laws of physics broke down, doesn't that mean that the naturalists starting point is not natural???
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 3:41:23 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 524
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
OK, I just had a thought... If scientists believe that the "big bang" was where everything was reduced to a singularity, and that this singularity was a point where the laws of physics broke down, doesn't that mean that the naturalists starting point is not natural???
It means that the laws of physics as we understand them today do not apply. It does not mean that the starting point must be supernatural. When we saw that Newtonian physics could not explain Mercury's orbital precession, scientists did not abandon naturalism. Einstein came up with another natural explanation. -- General Relativity. The fact that the General Relativity does not deal with a singularity very well does not mean we must resort to a supernatural explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 3:43:46 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7406
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
It means that the laws of physics as we understand them today do not apply. It does not mean that the starting point must be supernatural. When we saw that Newtonian physics could not explain Mercury's orbital precession, scientists did not abandon naturalism. Einstein came up with another natural explanation. -- General Relativity. The fact that the General Relativity does not deal with a singularity very well does not mean we must resort to a supernatural explanation.
I wonder what the meaning of supernatural would be if it doesn't mean 'occcuring outside of nature'?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 3:54:02 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
No, they do not mean the same thing. But it doesn't follow from that they contradict each other either.
Why do you say they are in opposition?
This will be a little bit off topic, but as this is my thread, I don't mind a deviation for a moment... Maybe it is my understanding of evolution that is throwing a wrench into the cogs. I was never taught evolution in school as I went to a private Christian school while growing up, and I'm generally not interested in it enough for me to take note when science may refine its own views on the matter...
Please tell me: How is the Biblical creation story (both it's origination in Genesis, and as referenced throughout the Bible) not in opposition to a common scientific view of evolution as the "origin of species?"
I think it may also have to do with not being taught religion very well, either. Most Creationists don't bother learning about evolution and other aspects of science; therefore they have so little understanding that they cannot distinguish science from religion.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 3:58:12 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
OK, I just had a thought... If scientists believe that the "big bang" was where everything was reduced to a singularity, and that this singularity was a point where the laws of physics broke down, doesn't that mean that the naturalists starting point is not natural???
It means that the laws of physics as we understand them today do not apply. It does not mean that the starting point must be supernatural. When we saw that Newtonian physics could not explain Mercury's orbital precession, scientists did not abandon naturalism. Einstein came up with another natural explanation. -- General Relativity. The fact that the General Relativity does not deal with a singularity very well does not mean we must resort to a supernatural explanation.
Well, since we're going with the opinions of smart people, do you agree with Francis Crick, Nobel Lauriet for cracking the code of the DNA when he said "It would have to have been a spaceship that came from another planet that brought spores to seed the earth, and that's how we came to be..."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 4:03:25 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think it may also have to do with not being taught religion very well, either. Most Creationists don't bother learning about evolution and other aspects of science; therefore they have so little understanding that they cannot distinguish science from religion.
Well, you're probably right, I never was taught religion and I've always hated it... I WAS taught about Jesus though, and He can save you from both science and religion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 4:34:39 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 933
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Well, since we're going with the opinions of smart people, do you agree with Francis Crick, Nobel Lauriet for cracking the code of the DNA when he said "It would have to have been a spaceship that came from another planet that brought spores to seed the earth, and that's how we came to be..."
Although panspermia is a possibility, I don't think Crick was ever as ardent a supporter of the idea as your 'quote' makes him out to be; certainly, he backed away from it in more recent years as experiments on RNA-world showed that he had been "overly pessimistic" about abiogenesis.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 4:43:14 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
No, they do not mean the same thing. But it doesn't follow from that they contradict each other either.
Why do you say they are in opposition?
This will be a little bit off topic, but as this is my thread, I don't mind a deviation for a moment... Maybe it is my understanding of evolution that is throwing a wrench into the cogs. I was never taught evolution in school as I went to a private Christian school while growing up, and I'm generally not interested in it enough for me to take note when science may refine its own views on the matter...
Yes, it is probably your lack of education on both evolution and Christianity. (I assume that if you went to a Christian school that it taught only one Christian theology and did not discuss any "unapproved" thinking from other Christian traditions.)
You may have been taught, for example, that evolution is inherently atheistic. It is not, so that is one thing you would have to unlearn.
quote:
Please tell me: How is the Biblical creation story (both it's origination in Genesis, and as referenced throughout the Bible) not in opposition to a common scientific view of evolution as the "origin of species?"
I don't see a contradiction. Both tell us we are creatures of this planet, made of the substance ("dust") of this planet. The creation story says specifically that we are made by God; science is silent on that matter only looking at mechanisms, not at the ultimate agent. As far as I can see they are simply giving us different perspectives on the same phenomenon.
I heard an analogy to this. Suppose you come into the kitchen and ask "Why is the kettle boiling?"
One answer might be "Because it is plugged into the electrical outlet and that heats up the water to the boiling point." Another answer might be "Because I'm going to make a pot of tea." The answers are very different, but they are not in contradiction to each other.
The biblical story tells us we are children of God made in God's image. It is along the line of the "Because I'm going to make tea" answer.
The scientific story focuses on the natural causal mechanisms which led to the existence of our species. It is more like a "Because the kettle is plugged in" kind of answer.
One does not cancel out the other.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 4:48:09 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Well, since we're going with the opinions of smart people, do you agree with Francis Crick, Nobel Lauriet for cracking the code of the DNA when he said "It would have to have been a spaceship that came from another planet that brought spores to seed the earth, and that's how we came to be..."
Although panspermia is a possibility, I don't think Crick was ever as ardent a supporter of the idea as your 'quote' makes him out to be; certainly, he backed away from it in more recent years as experiments on RNA-world showed that he had been "overly pessimistic" about abiogenesis.
What is amazing to me though, is that someone would willingly choose a belief in that rather than a belief in God... Are the two concepts equally difficult to believe? Or is the atheist drawn to natural explainations of origins simply because they do not WANT to believe in God? Possibly a desire to refuse to believe in God stems from the lack of a desire to be personally responsible for the acts that they have committed that have violated their own moral codes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 4:52:49 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
One does not cancel out the other.
So in order to do that, one must take a purely allegorical approach to the Bible?? If Genesis is to be taken allegorically, does that mean that the entire Bible is allegory? I mean, where do you start, and where do you stop? How would one know historical narrative from purposeful prose?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 5:52:07 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
One does not cancel out the other.
So in order to do that, one must take a purely allegorical approach to the Bible?? If Genesis is to be taken allegorically, does that mean that the entire Bible is allegory? I mean, where do you start, and where do you stop? How would one know historical narrative from purposeful prose?
There are many different literary genres found in the bible including history and allegory and poetry and law and exhortation and prophetic oracles and apocalyptic eschatology, wisdom literature, and various forms of fiction. After all, the bible is actually a little library, not a single unitary composition. So there is no one-size-fits-all approach one can take with the bible. It has a bit of everything in it. It would be just as wrong to take a "purely" allegorical approach as to take a "purely" historical approach.
One learns how to tell one genre from another by learning the characteristic features of each type of literature. Of course, one type of literature grades into others, so there are often judgment calls to be made. History often shades into legend for example. And prophecy into apocalypse.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 5:54:06 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
One does not cancel out the other.
So in order to do that, one must take a purely allegorical approach to the Bible?? If Genesis is to be taken allegorically, does that mean that the entire Bible is allegory? I mean, where do you start, and where do you stop? How would one know historical narrative from purposeful prose?
A basic college-level course on Christianity would do you a world of good. Absent that, a library or bookstore would be good. Don't be afraid of unfamiliar (to you) ways of looking at scripture.
I learned more helpful information about Christianity in two college courses than in thirty-years of Sunday School and Church.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 8:29:52 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 524
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
It means that the laws of physics as we understand them today do not apply. It does not mean that the starting point must be supernatural. When we saw that Newtonian physics could not explain Mercury's orbital precession, scientists did not abandon naturalism. Einstein came up with another natural explanation. -- General Relativity. The fact that the General Relativity does not deal with a singularity very well does not mean we must resort to a supernatural explanation.
I wonder what the meaning of supernatural would be if it doesn't mean 'occcuring outside of nature'?
That would be the meaning. I would define supernatural as something occurring outside of nature.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 9:28:43 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7406
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
That would be the meaning. I would define supernatural as something occurring outside of nature.
Then by definition something happening outside of the universe would be supernatural.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/21/2008 9:38:12 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Then by definition something happening outside of the universe would be supernatural.
Not if this universe is only one among the many universes that make up a multiverse.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
