|
|
#51
11-22-2006, 06:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Precisely. Is this distinction beyond you, NR? [/ QUOTE ] I see no difference in the two statements. What's the distinction? [/ QUOTE ] I think it's which consideration should carry more weight - adhering to the correct interpretation of the bible or fitting our beliefs to scientific facts. 
|
|
#52
11-22-2006, 06:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's which consideration should carry more weight - adhering to the correct interpretation of the bible or fitting our beliefs to scientific facts. [/ QUOTE ] I got the subtlety of emphasis, thanks.
|
|
#54
11-22-2006, 07:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The child never had free-will. Your ability to intervene denied it. You can't have a power to intervene and a free-will. The existence of one precludes the existence of the other. [/ QUOTE ] Err - so children dont have free-will since their parents have the power to intervene? I thought you were a believer in free-will [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] My initial statement was in regards to notready saying that 'everything' is God's will. I assumed his subsequent analogy that I responded to was within that context. So within that framework, I simply claimed my inability to see how you could have an 'absolute' will co-existing with another free-will. If it's all God's will, there's no place for our free-will. If God's will is 'everything' like notready claims, would there be any room left for a free-will?
|
|
#55
11-22-2006, 07:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Precisely. Is this distinction beyond you, NR? [/ QUOTE ] I see no difference in the two statements. What's the distinction? [/ QUOTE ] The difference is that interpretations of the Bible are post-hoc to make room for scientific discovery, they don't actually hold up to science. Basically, people didn't have an interpretation of the Bible 500 years ago that worked with today's science - in fact, most of the falsifiable predictions made through those interpretations did, in fact, end up being falsified. Now, if science has shown us nothing to contradict traditional interpretations of the Bible, that would strongly support the Bible. But science does contradict traditional interpretations of the Bible - in fact, interpretations have been changing at breakneck speed in order to catch up with scientific knowledge. That strongly undermines the Bible (at least if you assume inerrancy - in order for such changes to be justified rationally, the Bible would have to be dynamic like a scientific theory).
|
|
#56
11-23-2006, 02:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
If God's will is 'everything' like notready claims, would there be any room left for a free-will? [/ QUOTE ] That's not exactly correct. God is sovereign and He is in control of everything. I'm reluctant to use the phrase "free will" because it isn't in the Bible except in a very limited context, and it's very difficult to define. I maintain that man is responsible, that his guilt is real, that we are not automatons. I personally believe that in some sense free will is involved in the guilt of mankind but I can't state it dogmatically or support it from Scripture. But I can state dogmatically that we are truly guilty and responsible. Mystery remains.
|
|
#57
11-23-2006, 03:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
The difference is that interpretations of the Bible are post-hoc to make room for scientific discovery, they don't actually hold up to science [/ QUOTE ] Some are. Augustine's wasn't though. But science does contradict traditional interpretations of the Bible - in fact, interpretations have been changing at breakneck speed in order to catch up with scientific knowledge This is a very generalized statement. But there are many Christians that don't lock the Bible into a particular scientific mould. Because the Bible isn't a science textbook. Augustine was almost prescient again on this issue. He gave a very strong warning about making Bible interpretations that contradicted common knowledge. For many centuries theologians considered there to be two books of God's revelation - nature and Scripture - and firmly believed they never contradicted one another. At various times science has changed and at various times Bible interpretation has changed. We are often accused of being rigid and inflexible. The truth is, for me at least, that I want to know the correct interpretation of the Bible and genuine science. As far as I know I've never made a dogmatic statement about what the Bible says concerning any scientific issue. I avoid taking a position on the age of the earth, for instance. I don't exclude the possibility of evolution guided by God (you can even find some statements in Augustine that are compatible with some concepts of evolution). I reject chance in the sense of true randomness, but that isn't science. Even very skilled theologians make mistakes. The really good ones are not inflexible and are willing to change their understanding of Scripture when appropriate. Geocentricity is a good example. The Bible never says the earth is the center of the universe. But science said so for thousands of years. The Church went along with that, and no doubt would have been labelled obscurantist and ignorant had they denied it. But there's no way to support geocentricity from Scripture. Or heliocentricity either. Had I been alive before Copernicus and thought the way I do now I probably would have said the earth is likely the center of the universe but I can't state it dogmatically from Scripture. That is the correct Scriptural attitude. The Church went beyond that and got caught (the Galileo thing). I can guess that if Augustine were alive today he would take a reserved attitude toward, say, human evolution. I think he would doubt the evidence supports it conclusively, and he would be uncertain how to interpret Genesis (which gave him difficulty anyway), and so he would probably take a noncommittal stance. I think he would be correct, and that is often what theologians in the past have done. But the real test is simply Scripture, not what the Church has said over the centuries. If the Church was wrong so be it. If it can't be clearly decided, so be it.
|
|
#58
11-23-2006, 03:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Precisely. Is this distinction beyond you, NR? [/ QUOTE ] I see no difference in the two statements. What's the distinction? [/ QUOTE ] They're different, the second is inferred from the first, but they're not the same. In any case, what you just agreed to is that the "correct" interpretation of The Bible will as time goes by, follow the steps of science so as to not to be contradicted. In other words, when science proves something The Bible says is wrong (and it will, as it has), theists will just adapt their interpretation and claim that it's just a matter of understanding the "real meaning" of the statement. So really The Bible contains no real truths. It's like grabbing a newspaper and say it contains the ultimate knowledge, then as scientific knowledge progresses you adapt your interpretation of the original newspaper so as to fit the discovered information.
|
|
#59
11-23-2006, 03:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
In any case, what you just agreed to is that the "correct" interpretation of The Bible will as time goes by, follow the steps of science so as to not to be contradicted. [/ QUOTE ] I don't say that at all. The Bible makes few, if any, scientific statements. What Christians believe is the truth may be guessed at from the Bible without actually being in the Bible. Geocentricity, for instance. Christians rightly thought that this world and mankind were important to God. Without any further evidence, and relying on current science, it wasn't unreasonable for them to accept that science. But the Bible doesn't teach geocentricity. So when it turns out heliocentricity is correct, Christians can change their understanding of the solar system without changing anything they believe about what the Bible actually teaches. [ QUOTE ] In other words, when science proves something The Bible says is wrong (and it will, as it has) [/ QUOTE ] Such as?
|
|
#60
11-23-2006, 05:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
I agree - but dont you think the second is reasonable also? [/ QUOTE ] I'll answer the rest: Q: And everything that counts as evidence must ultimately be reducible to the data of perception? A: This is a non question. This is not a requirement of science, but of life. To know anything external to an individual - in fact to know anything at all, or to be conscious - requires the actual existence of an outside world, which is perceived through our senses. So all of life and all of belief is ultimately reducible to the data of perception. Q: Where is there any observation made by science establishing the intrinsic properties of an object independent of the conscious mind? A: Again, this is not specific to science. The assumption that an external world exists is the foundation of both science and religion. Provided you accept that assumption (and you have to to even have this conversation), then the intrinsic properties of objects can be established, independent of the conscious mind. Q: So then there is, in fact, no evidence of the properties of anything independent of their interpretation by subjective perceptions? A: Only if you deny science the assumption that an external world exists. Q: Can these perceptions themselves be subjected to scientific inquiry. A: Well that's called psychology. However, the quality of these perceptions, and the degree to which they describe reality, can be tested by requiring that perceptions can be replicated, and that models based on these perceptions fit with all available data.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
