Faith and its Relation to Science

I am an old-earther who believes in the compatibility of the Christian faith with the Big Bang scientific account of creation and I wouldn't hold to evolution. I was wondering about the view of young-earthers as to the function of faith concerning our understanding of the truth through science. My pastor, who believes in a recent creation, once said "You can't marry the Bible and science." I want to know whether most YE would agree with this or not. Isn't science just a revelation of truth like any other? The dual revelation idea involves science as a general revelation to the world while the Bible is a unique special revelation. Do YECs differentiate between a blind faith and a smart faith? Which one does God demand of us? Belief in Him by the testing of the truth, or a "just-believe" approach?

BTW, I am new to the site, sorry if this has been answered in depth before, if so you could refer me to te proper links.
 
Truth Hunter...

Welcome to the boards from the loyal opposition. I view science and religion as not only two different methods of learning about the world, but methods that apply to two very different classes of phenomenon. Religion tells one about spiritual truths, using revelation as the method. Science tells us about the behavior of nature, using natural explanations. I do not see much overlap between the two, though it is conceivable that there could be some.

I do not believe in the existence of the supernatural, so I have little else to say in response, except that the Christian view does not necessarily have to deny the scientific evidence: even where it pertains to evolution.

I'll look forward to seeing you encounter and accept the scientific evidence for evolution and joining other evolutionists of all faiths and none in accepting the conclusions of science.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Truth Hunter
I was wondering about the view of young-earthers as to the function of faith concerning our understanding of the truth through science. My pastor, who believes in a recent creation, once said "You can't marry the Bible and science." I want to know whether most YE would agree with this or not.

I totally disagree.

Psalm 19:1-2
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.

Romans 1:20
For  since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (clue added emphasis)

Originally posted by Truth Hunter  
Isn't science just a revelation of truth like any other? The dual revelation idea involves science as a general revelation to the world while the Bible is a unique special revelation.

Science is a revelation of the naturalistic laws around us.  But it cannot account for everything.

Any believer in a higher power will have to admit that science CANNOT account for him/her/it.

Originally posted by Truth Hunter  
Do YECs differentiate between a blind faith and a smart faith? Which one does God demand of us? Belief in Him by the testing of the truth, or a "just-believe" approach?

The blind faith comes into play when you believe that there is a god at all, because there is no data that will absolutely prove that one exists.  The smart faith comes into play when you choose to believe in a specific god, because you have to use your intellect to determine which is the most credible one.

What is the greatest commandment?

Matthew 22:37
Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' (clue added emphasis)

What does 'with all your mind' mean to you?

So, to sum up, I believe in a god, I believe in the God of the Bible, I believe that the Bible implies a young Earth, and I believe that God would want us to use our brains to investigate further.
 
Upvote 0

Osanya

Active Member
Oct 19, 2002
59
0
Visit site
✟15,213.00
Faith
Atheist
The blind faith comes into play when you believe that there is a god at all, because there is no data that will absolutely prove that one exists. The smart faith comes into play when you choose to believe in a specific god, because you have to use your intellect to determine which is the most credible one.
Yeah, 'cause anyone who's not a Christian is dumb.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by clue
The blind faith comes into play when you believe that there is a god at all, because there is no data that will absolutely prove that one exists.  The smart faith comes into play when you choose to believe in a specific god, because you have to use your intellect to determine which is the most credible one.
So, to sum up, I believe in a god, I believe in the God of the Bible, I believe that the Bible implies a young Earth, and I believe that God would want us to use our brains to investigate further.

1. I don't think faith in the existence of a deity is "blind".  It's just that the evidence that convinces theists is not the objective, intersubjective evidence that science is restricted to.

2.  When you say "the most credible" deity, it seems to me you are referring to the fact that theists have rejected thousands of versions of deity over the millenia.  A question to you: how did they do that?  How do you think they were "smart" when they did that?

3. When you say "I believe in the God of the Bible", what interpretation of the Bible are you using?  Literalistic or heuristic?

4. When Christians did investigate the issue of a young earth, in the period 1700-1830, they unanimously concluded that the evidence falsified a young earth.  How do you account for that?
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by Truth Hunter
My pastor, who believes in a recent creation, once said "You can't marry the Bible and science." 

I'm most definitely not a YECer :D  I would ask your pastor: What interpretation of the Bible?

You can't accept a literalistic Genesis and science.  However, nearly all Christian theologians have no problem in accepting that the theological messages of the Bible are compatible with science.  Some theologians also thought that evolution deepened their theological thinking:

"The last few years have witnessed the gradual acceptance by Christians of the great scientific generalisation of our age, which is briefly if somewhat vaguely described as the Theory of Evolution. ... It is an advance in our theological thinking; a definite increase of insight; a fresher and fuller appreciation of those 'many ways' in which 'God fulfills Himself'.  JR Ilingsworth, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
 
Upvote 0
Thank you, clue, for the clarification. I know some YEC who would hold that pupolarly held science is either wrong, or just irrelevant to their beliefs. Many agree with a large dichotomy between the truth of the Bible with the truth of science. I think the reasoning often goes something like this

Premise 1: The Bible is true.

Premise 2: The Bible and science conflict.

Inference: Only one can be true.

Conclusion: The Bible is true and science is false.

They don't consider that perhaps their interpretation of either the scientific facts or the Biblical evidence is wrong. I am sure you are all familiar with this. It is just something that makes me depressed. The Christian society as I know it is not very open to questioning. My pastor, for example, has already determined he believes in a young-earth without examining the evidence (I'm pretty sure he has not, but perhaps I'm wrong).

Anyway, glad to hear a YEC who attempts to have smart faith rather than the blind faith common to YE creationists.

 
The blind faith comes into play when you believe that there is a god at all, because there is no data that will absolutely prove that one exists. The smart faith comes into play when you choose to believe in a specific god, because you have to use your intellect to determine which is the most credible one.

What do you mean by this? Are you saying that atheism requires absolute proof? If theism doesn't require absolute proof but only to find "which is the most credible" doesn't it seem fair to conclude one can be atheist without absolute proof.
 
Upvote 0
lucaspa,

I would tend to the common OE account of creation consistent with the literal interpretation of Scripture that denys that the account describes a six 24-hour days. I'm sure this has come up before, but what problems do you have with this view? After all, if one holds the Bible to be literally accurate in the Gospel books and the historical books, wouldn't it be fair to assume one should read the Genesis account literally? (unless you only hold to the main theological ideas in the Bible rather than the literal parts)

I think an OE model devoid of macroevolution is consistent with a literalist view of the Bible and the findings of science.

I have no dogma against evolution, but it seems it is not an option with a literal reading of Genesis 1. I would like to know more about your view of the Bible (What do you believe is accurate? Are any of the historical accounts true?)

Thx from the newb
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Originally posted by lucaspa
1. I don't think faith in the existence of a deity is "blind".  It's just that the evidence that convinces theists is not the objective, intersubjective evidence that science is restricted to.

At the risk of sounding paranoid, I don't think science is as objective as you would like us to believe.  Science is driven by people.  Are people usually objective, devoid of any leanings left or right?

Originally posted by lucaspa
2.  When you say "the most credible" deity, it seems to me you are referring to the fact that theists have rejected thousands of versions of deity over the millenia.  A question to you: how did they do that?  How do you think they were "smart" when they did that?

Well, I was really referring to myself and not theists in general.  A shortened version of my conversion:

Is it plausible that there is a god?
What are the major religions?
What supporting evidence is there for their beliefs? 
Are they mutually in/exclusive?
Which one seems to be the most credible? 

Originally posted by lucaspa
3. When you say "I believe in the God of the Bible", what interpretation of the Bible are you using?  Literalistic or heuristic?

I try to be as literal as possible.  There are times when the Bible is obviously being allegorical, and I will process those passages accordingly.

Originally posted by lucaspa
4. When Christians did investigate the issue of a young earth, in the period 1700-1830, they unanimously concluded that the evidence falsified a young earth.  How do you account for that?

How can you make a statement like this?  Did ALL Christians investigate this for themselves?  Or were they just following what the leader of their denomination was stating?  And did the leaders EVEN state 'we believe in an old Earth?'  Or was it more like 'we believe that a young OR old Earth is compatible with the teachings of the Bible?'  I'll have to see some evidence on this.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Truth Hunter
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that atheism requires absolute proof? If theism doesn't require absolute proof but only to find "which is the most credible" doesn't it seem fair to conclude one can be atheist without absolute proof.

I'm not writing that Atheism requires absolute proof at all.  In fact, I think a person who believes in Atheism is even blinder than a person who believes in a god.

I guess I didn't express myself very well.  What I was trying to say is that there is a 'blindness' factor when you are dealing with faith.  In fact, it's part of the definition for faith.  But there is a difference between a totally blind faith and a faith based on logical, deductive, and/or scientific evidence.

Example of totally blind faith - believing my bank account will grow even though I never make any deposits into it.  What leads me to believe this?

Example of faith based on evidence - believing that my parents love me even though they never tell me so.  What leads me to believe this?
 
Upvote 0
At the risk of sounding paranoid, I don't think science is as objective as you would like us to believe. Science is driven by people. Are people usually objective, devoid of any leanings left or right?

Scienctists are no more objective than you or I. Science is objective by methodology. The methodology of only accepting data that can be objectively observed is the first step in making science objective. The second step is by using falsification criteria to eliminate hypotheses that look to be well supported because of bias among those who would like to see them well supported. The third step is the peer review process, where "science" doesn't accept the work of a scientist until other scientists have checked it for bias and other flaws.

The methodology of science is what makes it objective, and even so it is still not perfectly objective. It is merely the best we can achieve given that we only have biased humans available to perform the science.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Scienctists are no more objective than you or I.

Thank you for admitting this.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Science is objective by methodology.

We'll see....

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
The methodology of only accepting data that can be objectively observed is the first step in making science objective.

Who was responsible for this methodology?

Originally posted by Jerry Smith The second step is by using falsification criteria to eliminate hypotheses that look to be well supported because of bias among those who would like to see them well supported.

Who is suppose to make these observations?

Originally posted by Jerry Smith The third step is the peer review process, where "science" doesn't accept the work of a scientist until other scientists have checked it for bias and other flaws.

Who is suppose to make these reviews?

 

Thank you for proving my point that science is an imperfect venture run by imperfect mechanisms.  :)

In this instance, science is like the judicial system.  It's not infallible, but it's better than nothing.  And like the judicial system, it is possible to make some pretty egregious mistakes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by Truth Hunter lucaspa,

I would tend to the common OE account of creation consistent with the literal interpretation of Scripture that denys that the account describes a six 24-hour days. I'm sure this has come up before, but what problems do you have with this view
?

Well, the first problem is that you have plants around for millions of years before you have a sun. Second, you have whales around for millions of years before the land mammals they evolved from.  Third, you have the earth around for millions of years before any of the other stars and even the sun.  That contradicts everything astronomy has found.

After all, if one holds the Bible to be literally accurate in the Gospel books and the historical books, wouldn't it be fair to assume one should read the Genesis account literally?

The Gospels and historical books are not 100% literally accurate either.  Luke says "all the world was taxed", but we take extrabiblical knowledge to know that not all the world was taxed.

Do you need 100% literal accuracy for the theological messages to be true?  Obviously the Exodus and Resurrection must be true for Judeo-Christianity to survive, but do all the details need to be so? Does Jesus really have to have his side pierced by a spear?

I think an OE model devoid of macroevolution is consistent with a literalist view of the Bible and the findings of science.

Not with the findings of science.  Speciation (macroevolution) has been observed so often that many of the YEC organizations accept it.

I have no dogma against evolution, but it seems it is not an option with a literal reading of Genesis 1.

I agree it's not an option with a literal reading of Genesis 1. Of course, Genesis 2 isn't an option with a literal reading of Genesis 1, so obviously a literal reading is not the right one.  Let me suggest that Genesis 1 is a monograph for monotheism and against the polytheism of the Babylonian pantheon.  Read the Enuma Elish.  Genesis 1 takes the Babylonian gods in order and destroys them by making them created entities.  For instance, plants are created before the sun because Marduk, chief god of the Babylonians, is the god of agriculture and mentioned first in the Enuma Elish while Markuk's sibling is the goddess of the sun and mentioned later. So Genesis 1 takes them in order.  While that may not be scientifically accurate, it is the correct theological approach for Hebrews under pressure to convert.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by clue At the risk of sounding paranoid, I don't think science is as objective as you would like us to believe.  Science is driven by people.  Are people usually objective, devoid of any leanings left or right?

In this case, "objective" means outside of ourselves.  Something that we can directly experience through our senses.  Something belonging in the objective physical universe.

What science does is force objectivity on scientists. It does this several ways.  1. It refuses to listen to subjective evidence.  That is, if I say to a fellow scientist "I feel that this is right", the response is "what is your data?"  2. It sets up methods to remove bias from studies.  Randomized, prospective, double-blind medical trials are an example of this.  The "double-blind" means neither the doctor nor the patient knows if the patient is getting the drug under investigation.  That way any lack of objectivity on the part of the doctor can't influence the results.  3. Peer-review.  This means your colleagues look at your papers before they are published.  Since your colleagues are also your competitors, they have a selfish motive for finding your research to be wrong.  Being able to convince them goes a long way to make your results and claims objective.

Well, I was really referring to myself and not theists in general.  A shortened version of my conversion:

Is it plausible that there is a god?
What are the major religions?
What supporting evidence is there for their beliefs? 
Are they mutually in/exclusive?
Which one seems to be the most credible
?

In which case you seem to be lacking the personal experience of deity that convinces many theists. Thomas Aquinas did what you did and came up with many logical arguments for the existence of deity. After all that effort, he had a personal experience that he claimed made all those efforts trivial and worthless.

It seems to me that once you decide there is a deity, then yes, you do have the second step of faith in deciding which version of deity.   

I try to be as literal as possible.  There are times when the Bible is obviously being allegorical, and I will process those passages accordingly.

How do you decide a passage is allegorical?  I submit that you use extrabiblical knowledge in the process.  Yet you refuse to use extrabiblical knowledge to decide Genesis 1 or 2 is allegorical. Why?  Why the inconsistency? 

How can you make a statement like this?  Did ALL Christians investigate this for themselves?  Or were they just following what the leader of their denomination was stating?  And did the leaders EVEN state 'we believe in an old Earth?' 

Try Genesis and Geology and The Biblical Flood, A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence  for all the details.

Briefly, not until the 1860s could scientists earn a living as a scientist. They all had day jobs or were independently wealthy.  And for most of them, their day job was being a minister.  So, the investigation of geology, especially in Britain, was in the hands of ministers who were also geologists.  And they unanimously concluded that the earth was old. For instance, Rev Adam Sedgwick was the premier English geologist (Darwin learned his geology from him) and served for years as President of the Royal Geology Society. He had always accepted an old earth, but thought that the topmost strata could be due to Noah's Flood.  When he retired as President in 1831, he announced that Noah's Flood had been falsified:
"Having, been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.

We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood.  ... we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths."  (Sedgwick, 1831, 313-314; all but the last sentence quoted in Gillispie 1951, 142-143)

"Because the Christian naturalists of the era were unafraid of God-given evidence, they recognized that the extrabiblical information provided a splendid opportunity for closer investigation of the biblical text in order to clear up earlier mistakes in interpretation." Biblical Flood, pg 117.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by clue Who was responsible for this methodology?

 :) Nice try to imply that imperfect scientists came up with imperfect methodologies.  If you believe God created logic, then God.  Humans only discovered them.  What we have in science is a discipline studying how the physical universe works.  All disciplines are limited, and science limits itself. What has emerged over the centuries, by contributions of thousands of scientists and philosophers of science, is a methodology that is extremely reliable within its limitations.


Originally posted by Jerry Smith The second step is by using falsification criteria to eliminate hypotheses that look to be well supported because of bias among those who would like to see them well supported.

Who is suppose to make these observations?

Everyone.  When a scientist first conceives a hypothesis, it is his job to try to falsify it by looking at data she already has.  Then it is still his job by conducting an experiment (s). Later, once the hypothesis is communicated, it becomes the job of everyone to try to falsify it.  It is only after genuine attempts to falsify a hypothesis have failed is it taken to be (provisionally) true. 


Who is suppose to make these reviews?

Your fellow scientists/competitors.   

Thank you for proving my point that science is an imperfect venture run by imperfect mechanisms. 

As opposed to Biblical exegesis, for example?  How many exegeses for various texts have we heard.  How many Christian denominations are there because of doctrinal differences brought about by different interpretations of the text? (over 20,000 different denominations the last time I looked)

In this instance, science is like the judicial system.  It's not infallible, but it's better than nothing.  And like the judicial system, it is possible to make some pretty egregious mistakes.

Science is much better than the judicial system. The judicial system has a time limit on coming to a conclusion and must always act on inadequate data. Science can wait forever for the data to be in.

The fact is that science is the most reliable form of knowledge we have.  If it wasn't, neither creationists nor fundamentalist atheists would be trying to say that science backs their position.  In fact, consider, in every discussion, whether school board budgets, deployment of a missile defense system, or deciding that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, saying that you have scientific evidence effectively ends the discussion, right?

What you want to do, Clue, is dismiss scientific evidence because it doesn't agree with an emotionally important issue of yours. Rather than modify the position, try to dismiss science.
 
Upvote 0
 
Well, the first problem is that you have plants around for millions of years before you have a sun.

As I understand the reading of Genesis 1, the Bible establishes a frame of reference for the six days in Genesis 1:2 "the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Thus everything that occurred was from the point of view of the surface of the waters (what is your view on this, lucaspa?). If so, then the "creation" of the sun on the 4th day does not conflict since this occurs by the transition of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent. So light came before the 4th day, but the sun and moon were not distinguishable until the 4th day.

Second, you have whales around for millions of years before the land mammals they evolved from.

As for the whales, the model I established in the first post assumes that God created without the use of macroevolution.

 
Third, you have the earth around for millions of years before any of the other stars and even the sun. That contradicts everything astronomy has found.

Again, the earth was created on the first day, along with the sun, moon and stars (The word hayah is used as the creation verb, so the translation of the sun, moon, and stars as being made to appear rather than created from nothing an appropriate one).

 
The Gospels and historical books are not 100% literally accurate either. Luke says "all the world was taxed", but we take extrabiblical knowledge to know that not all the world was taxed.

That makes sense. I didn't make myself very clear, and I see what you mean by a less literalistic view of the Bible. When Luke says "all the world was taxed," it was a figure of speech. When I meant I take the Bible literally, that means I would take that phrase literally, but not each word literally, since it seems from context that the phrase itself is a figure of speech. On the other hand, does anyone take the Bible LITERALLY (dictionary.com: 2. Word for word; verbatim)? I don't think so. We take the Bible literally (dictionary.com: 1.Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words). So when the author of Song of Solomon 2:1 wrote "I am a rose of Sharon,
a lily of the valleys" we don't first think of a talking rose.

 
Do you need 100% literal accuracy for the theological messages to be true? Obviously the Exodus and Resurrection must be true for Judeo-Christianity to survive, but do all the details need to be so? Does Jesus really have to have his side pierced by a spear?

No, you're right. The essence of the Bible is not in the details, but the theological ideas. But to pick and choose what's true and what's not from the Bible isn't fair, is it? How can we confirm that the theology is true without confirmation that the archaeology, history, etc. is true?

 
Not with the findings of science. Speciation (macroevolution) has been observed so often that many of the YEC organizations accept it.

Uhhh, I'll let you have the last word on that one, seeing as I don't know a whole lot about evolution, and that that debate is a lot longer.

I've never heard of the Genesis as a refutation for the Babylonians, sounds interesting.

 
How can you make a statement like this? Did ALL Christians investigate this for themselves? Or were they just following what the leader of their denomination was stating? And did the leaders EVEN state 'we believe in an old Earth?' Or was it more like 'we believe that a young OR old Earth is compatible with the teachings of the Bible?' I'll have to see some evidence on this.

This is just a related comment, but a lot of the early church members believed in an old earth, and that was without being "biased" by evidence for the Big Bang and the old age of the earth. Their simple interpretation of the Genesis 1 text led them to believe that the earth was old. They include: Philo, Josephus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, and others. Some viewed the six days as figurative, others as longer periods, or thousand-year periods.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Originally posted by lucaspa
How do you decide a passage is allegorical?  I submit that you use extrabiblical knowledge in the process.

Not really.  For example, the Song of Solomon is poetry in nature.  It should not be taken literally.  And I didn't even need a commentary to tell me that.  :)

Originally posted by lucaspa
Yet you refuse to use extrabiblical knowledge to decide Genesis 1 or 2 is allegorical. Why?  Why the inconsistency?

There is nothing in Gen 1 and 2 to signify that it is allegorical in nature.

Originally posted by lucaspa
Try Genesis and Geology and The Biblical Flood, A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence  for all the details.

Briefly, not until the 1860s could scientists earn a living as a scientist. They all had day jobs or were independently wealthy.  And for most of them, their day job was being a minister.  So, the investigation of geology, especially in Britain, was in the hands of ministers who were also geologists.  And they unanimously concluded that the earth was old.

What were the names of some of this ministers/geologists?[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0