Philosophy/Theology vs Mystery

[cloudyday2]

Where are you getting your impression that philosophers go around making naive proclamations, then? It looks like the reading you've done in the field actually contradicts rather than supports that stereotype.

Mostly it seems to be Christian apologists on youtube and forums who are doing this in my experience. William Lane Craig is one example. Of course the context is usually a debate meant to win-over an audience.

 

[Silmarien]

Mostly it seems to be Christian apologists on youtube and forums who are doing this in my experience. William Lane Craig is one example. Of course the context is usually a debate meant to win-over an audience.

Yeah, none of that is very representative of either philosophy or theology. William Craig is technically a professional philosopher (though primarily an apologist, and you're unlikely to run into his more serious work in those venues), but anything else you're dealing with is just amateur stuff.

 

[mindlight]

God inspired people, eventually religious texts were written, and finally leaders agreed on a Biblical canon. Is there anything preventing God from inspiring modern people with supplementary teachings, clarifications, instructions for specific local problems, etc? One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned by Paul was the gift of prophecy. Wouldn't a modern person with the gift of prophecy reveal truths from God?

The bible mentions such prophets in NT times predicting famines for instance. The two witnesses in Jerusalem in the last days are two powerful examples. But prophecies need to be tested, the spirit of a prophet testifies to Jesus and they will not contradict what has already been said in scripture.

Mainly what we need to know about God was revealed in Jesus , is recorded in the bible and has been interpreted by the church through the Holy Spirit. A prophet will not contradict any of this but he may add insight on its meaning.

Philosophers value here is in the exposing and clarification of assumptions and thought patterns. But the final tests of a,prophet are does he testify to Jesus, does what he predict ( that was not conditional ) come true, is what he says true to the revelation we already have.

 

[John 1720]

I assume that until the 20th century a philosopher would have felt confident that ideas like particles and waves were clearly defined and useful for understanding the world. Then the scientists gradually discovered problems with those ideas and other ideas that seemed so obvious before.

So I wonder if philosophers and theologians should be a little more humble in their proclamations about God, Creation, and other mysteries? What do you think?

Hi Cloudyday2,
I wonder if modern scientists might try to be a bit more humble, seeing how the earliest inroads to truth and discovery, which included philosophy, logic and reason, were and still are the very foundations upon which modern science became and remains upright. I would, however, make a separate case for Theology, the knowledge of God vs traditional scientific study. Theology is built, not unreasonably, on the premise of an infinite God who transcends Himself into our finite nature creating relationship between His finite creation and His eternal Being. Whereas, traditional science is confined to the study or the area of knowledge that we can possess of the finite physical universe, theology seeks to understand that all from the eternal perspective. Finite beings may only make inferences to the eternalness and the infiniteness of God. We know infinity can be represented mathematically but that still is an abstract property and not a physical property we can truly comprehend. Thus the need for Theology - which is that imperfect attempt to behold the mind and heart of God as He relates to His creation.
BTW: I also think that the ancients, through logic and mathematics perhaps knew more than you may be giving them credit for:

• Democritus - Wikipedia
• Eratosthenes - Wikipedia

May God bless us

 

[cloudyday2]

Hi Cloudyday2,
I wonder if modern scientists might try to be a bit more humble, seeing how the earliest inroads to truth and discovery, which included philosophy, logic and reason, were and still are the very foundations upon which modern science became and remains upright. I would, however, make a separate case for Theology, the knowledge of God vs traditional scientific study. Theology is built, not unreasonably, on the premise of an infinite God who transcends Himself into our finite nature creating relationship between His finite creation and His eternal Being. Whereas, traditional science is confined to the study or the area of knowledge that we can possess of the finite physical universe, theology seeks to understand that all from the eternal perspective. Finite beings may only make inferences to the eternalness and the infiniteness of God. We know infinity can be represented mathematically but that still is an abstract property and not a physical property we can truly comprehend. Thus the need for Theology - which is that imperfect attempt to behold the mind and heart of God as He relates to His creation.
BTW: I also think that the ancients, through logic and mathematics perhaps knew more than you may be giving them credit for:

• Democritus - Wikipedia
• Eratosthenes - Wikipedia

May God bless us

There are lots of possibilities for God(s), but in the post above you are assuming "eternal", "infinite", and so on. Why?
- Because philosophers lack the imagination (apparently) to consider other possibilities?
- Because there is a verse in the Bible that seems to suggest those attributes?
- Because it seems "nice" on paper to imagine a God with these attributes?

Whatever is out there is probably laughing at the limited imagination of theologians and philosophers. We aren't going to know God by imagining what God "ought" to be. We need to search for evidence of some kind. The truth will probably be more surprising than anything we could imagine IMO.

 

[zippy2006]

Whatever is out there is probably laughing at the limited imagination of theologians and philosophers. We aren't going to know God by imagining what God "ought" to be. We need to search for evidence of some kind. The truth will probably be more surprising than anything we could imagine IMO.

Or maybe you need to broaden your horizons beyond YouTubers and William Lane Craig debates. If someone critiqued the entire scientific enterprise after watching a video by an amateur YouTuber who has a vague interest in science, what would you say to them?

 

[cloudyday2]

Or maybe you need to broaden your horizons beyond YouTubers and William Lane Craig debates. If someone critiqued the entire scientific enterprise after watching a video by an amateur YouTuber who has a vague interest in science, what would you say to them?

But these are the people I am criticizing - the Christian apologists who claim that philosophy and theology support their ideas about God rather than using evidence of some kind. If somebody I trust said they felt that God told them "A, B, and C" that is far more persuasive than some Christian apologist making an argument about a "first cause" or a "basis of morality". Anecdotes aren't the best evidence of course. We know that people can be mistaken or deluded or even lie, but they are far better than the philosophical arguments for God. The ONLY reason I suspect God might exist is because I have a few personal experiences and I have heard of personal experiences from people I trust. I don't understand why apologists are always using philosophy.

 

[John 1720]

There are lots of possibilities for God(s), but in the post above you are assuming "eternal", "infinite", and so on. Why?

1. - Because philosophers lack the imagination (apparently) to consider other possibilities?
2. - Because there is a verse in the Bible that seems to suggest those attributes?
3. - Because it seems "nice" on paper to imagine a God with these attributes?

Hi Cloudyday2​

You are correct by inferring back to me that theology is more than just simply the study of the infinite and eternal aspects of the Theos. However neither multiple choice conjectures 1, 2 or 3 really have anything to do with why I led with that example. Yes, what I stated is indeed an oversimplification but my intent was to introduce the topic in an analogous form that at least our limited mathematics can conceive of. So, my opener was not intended to be abstract and esoteric but seeking a common form as to the 'why, theology or philosophy. Another factor at the base level is that the physical world bounded by the unity of time and space really begs the questions and super colliders, which only operate within the 'physical' domain can never answer the question what came before in any rational sense since before time began had no "before" and is a meaningless construct.

Obviously the entire universe is only a subset of something greater that we cannot understand from a physical perspective. Neither can it be subject or dependent upon the laws of the physical universe we are acquainted with. Even the super colliders have shown the physical laws we base our science upon break down in the very early stages of space-time.

Is theology and philosophy really a waste of time? Asking questions we cannot answer is really the main driver in our quest for knowledge, or science science | Origin and meaning of science by Online Etymology Dictionary and as I said before Philosophy really was the mother of science since it began as the study of what knowledge is and gave us the logic to tackle our physical world. Theology presupposes an intelligent designer behind the harmony of the universe and the fact that we have the intelligence to perceive it being made in the image of the Creator. To me that is not a big leap and the study of a benevolent God is a very worthwhile enterprise. Just as mathematics and science has given us benefits so has the study of theology. However, unlike the study of finite temporal things theology gives us rational answers to why both good and evil exist in our world. Of course everyone is welcome TTOO and I don't expect it to be everyone's cup of tea. However, I will add one more abstract attribute to the Theos and what calls some to the study of God. It is Love, which I believe is the ultimate rational for existence yet lacks any physical description for its property to propel us. Without it this would be a dreary place indeed. Yet I believe investigating Love in truth leads us once again to the Theos and the character deemed most important to the Christian religion. Jesus Himself said we should pursue knowledge but this would be the knowledge of goodness, which comes from the Father. He castigates those who are supposed to reveal this knowledge and for their own earthly gain instead hide truth and prevent others from discovering it. These are religious leaders that He speaks to:​

• 
  
  
  • Luke 11:52 “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”​

​

Whatever is out there is probably laughing at the limited imagination of theologians and philosophers. We aren't going to know God by imagining what God "ought" to be. We need to search for evidence of some kind. The truth will probably be more surprising than anything we could imagine IMO.

Well, theologically speaking, I don't think so. The best of the human race seems to me to be benevolent and understanding; even though we are all fraught with faults and propensities that undermine both us and the rest of our contemporaries. If we are made to reflect the Creator then it follows He is benevolent and understanding to a much greater degree. Just as we can be benevolent to our children and patient even with animals that lack our understanding and perceptions its not a big leap to suppose God would be patient and loving towards us despite our weaknesses. When we are operating at our best thee are the qualities we admire among ourselves so following that natural order from finite being to eternal infinite Being leads us towards a loving God, who despises evil and is willing to knock down any wall to rescue us from it. Being a Christian I believe the testimony of Christ that He came to do just that and spared no expense in loving us to death. In doing so He showed us the Father:

• Col 1:13-15 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Quite the claim of course but everything I see in Jesus leads my heart ever deeper in being able to see the Father's love for all of us. This love, which I know to be mutual, has been a constant source of strength in my life, despite the difficulties. It casts out the hopelessness of death and the corruptness I see in this world with its promise. I am completely enamored in His person and believe He lives in me and guides my steps. Denying He is behind my all and all would be a lie. I come to that infinite ocean of love I see in Him and my soul is satisfied and my mind is enriched with purpose while my life proceeds in the natural course of all flesh. A true study of God is not simply head knowledge but will always be transformative to the human heart and produce fruit that can be shared with all - like a never ending supply of loaves and fishes to feed the masses.

• John 6:35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.

And so for me the search is over, though there is much more to learn I have found the source and am satisfied in Christ. This has been my experience on the grand tour and it matters not whether others think it relevant or not.

• John 15:4-5,8 “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. … By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples."

That's about it.
May God bless us, John 17:20

 

[cloudyday2]

@John 1720 , let me approach this a different way. The Christian God has many attributes. Let's just take "being that created the universe" and "being that we can meet through prayer". Those might be two DIFFERENT beings. There are SO many possible ways to imagine God(s). We need to use data of some kind to guide our conception of God(s). I don't mean repeatable lab data. A personal experience or the experience of a trusted friend is SOMETHING. It is a lot better than scribbling on a chalkboard.

EDIT: Of course some people might consider the Bible and Holy Tradition to be based on actual personal experiences of trusted ancient people. I prefer to experience for myself or learn about the experiences of people I know and trust to form my ideas about God.

 

[John 1720]

@John 1720 , let me approach this a different way. The Christian God has many attributes. Let's just take

1. "being that created the universe" and
2. "being that we can meet through prayer".

Those might be two DIFFERENT beings. There are SO many possible ways to imagine God(s). We need to use data of some kind to guide our conception of God(s). I don't mean repeatable lab data. A personal experience or the experience of a trusted friend is SOMETHING. It is a lot better than scribbling on a chalkboard.

Hello CloudyDay2,
If one assumes a Being who could create a magnificient universe with an area of 23 Gigaparsecs, as well as the nearly 9 million types of lifeforms on earth alone, then it would seem to beg the question why one would assume He would not want to communicate with His Creation. Also assuming there is a God who speaks with Creation but has no power over it seems no better than talking to the ceiling. Why speak at all? Using data to gain knowledge is something Ihat is my forte but that would not seem to define a loving God if He could only be found by those savvy enough to uncover Him, like some kind of challenging video game. A God of love would want all those created in His image young and old, sick and healthy, educated or uneducated to be able to receive His love and love Him back. That is what love does and I believe in a God that does that to the highest degree. When I look at the universe I see something lovely and beautiful. When I look at a brand ne baby or a mom and dad holding it for their first time I see something lovely. I met an older lady once visiting her husband in the hospital. He had just suffered a stroke and was not able to form words although he tried his best. She grabbed his hand and said yes I understand you are trying to tell me that you love me and I love you too. That was one of the most beautiful testimonies I ever saw from a married couple and God led me to go over and encourage them and pray for them. Love is a beautiful thing and I believe our maker is the prime source for it. A detached God who is omnipotent but has no love would be a hollow god indeed.

EDIT: Of course some people might consider the Bible and Holy Tradition to be based on actual personal experiences of trusted ancient people. I prefer to experience for myself or learn about the experiences of people I know and trust to form my ideas about God.

Have you ever read it? I don't mean the external commentaries good or bad you found in books or the web. Read it for yourself in private and decide for yourself if it has worth for your soul. Even if you only read the words of Jesus in the Gospels I believe you might begin to see what I am talking about here. Love jumps off those pages. Why not experience that for yourself instead of just taking someone elses word for it? A sincere prayer for God to reveal His reality may also help to open some doors for you. If He is not there's no harm, no foul in talking to the walls for a time but if He is really there, He may just open some doors for you that might just change your life. I have spent time in the Middle East with people from very different backgrounds than Christianity and I have seen the Holy Spirit move in ways that blew me away. God has a way of surprising us. He may be no respecter of persons nor is it ever about what we can bring to the table for Him. Most of the time I've seen God move I was simply along for the ride and it was clear He did all the heavy lifting. You see cloudyday2 I'll never tire of telling people that God loves us all equally as much and that He went to the cross for every one of us; even those who continue to reject Him as well as the ones who call Him Lord.
In Christ, John 17:20

 

[cloudyday2]

Hello CloudyDay2,
If one assumes a Being who could create a magnificient universe with an area of 23 Gigaparsecs, as well as the nearly 9 million types of lifeforms on earth alone, then it would seem to beg the question why one would assume He would not want to communicate with His Creation. Also assuming there is a God who speaks with Creation but has no power over it seems no better than talking to the ceiling. Why speak at all? Using data to gain knowledge is something Ihat is my forte but that would not seem to define a loving God if He could only be found by those savvy enough to uncover Him, like some kind of challenging video game. A God of love would want all those created in His image young and old, sick and healthy, educated or uneducated to be able to receive His love and love Him back. That is what love does and I believe in a God that does that to the highest degree. When I look at the universe I see something lovely and beautiful. When I look at a brand ne baby or a mom and dad holding it for their first time I see something lovely. I met an older lady once visiting her husband in the hospital. He had just suffered a stroke and was not able to form words although he tried his best. She grabbed his hand and said yes I understand you are trying to tell me that you love me and I love you too. That was one of the most beautiful testimonies I ever saw from a married couple and God led me to go over and encourage them and pray for them. Love is a beautiful thing and I believe our maker is the prime source for it. A detached God who is omnipotent but has no love would be a hollow god indeed.

You are simply saying how you think God ought to be. The lesson of quantum mechanics I mentioned in the OP is that we need to roll-up our sleeves and find out how things really behave instead of how we think they ought to behave or they might possibly behave. The truth is often stranger than fiction or philosophy or theology IMO, and that is why we need to seek the truth through actual data gathering. God and other paranormal things don't seem to perform in the laboratory, but at least we can look at the anecdotal experiences with minimal preconceptions. Of course the Bible is a record of some of these anecdotal experiences of God to whatever degree it is factual.

Have you ever read it? I don't mean the external commentaries good or bad you found in books or the web. Read it for yourself in private and decide for yourself if it has worth for your soul. Even if you only read the words of Jesus in the Gospels I believe you might begin to see what I am talking about here. Love jumps off those pages. Why not experience that for yourself instead of just taking someone elses word for it? A sincere prayer for God to reveal His reality may also help to open some doors for you. If He is not there's no harm, no foul in talking to the walls for a time but if He is really there, He may just open some doors for you that might just change your life. I have spent time in the Middle East with people from very different backgrounds than Christianity and I have seen the Holy Spirit move in ways that blew me away. God has a way of surprising us. He may be no respecter of persons nor is it ever about what we can bring to the table for Him. Most of the time I've seen God move I was simply along for the ride and it was clear He did all the heavy lifting. You see cloudyday2 I'll never tire of telling people that God loves us all equally as much and that He went to the cross for every one of us; even those who continue to reject Him as well as the ones who call Him Lord.
In Christ, John 17:20

Yep, I read the entire Bible several times when I was a teenager. (I'm 52 now, so that was a while ago.) I actually bought a pocket ESV NT a few months ago, because I wanted to see if I would get anything out of it in my current religious state. I just haven't had the energy to read anything lately.

 

[John 1720]

You are simply saying how you think God ought to be. The lesson of quantum mechanics I mentioned in the OP is that we need to roll-up our sleeves and find out how things really behave instead of how we think they ought to behave or they might possibly behave. The truth is often stranger than fiction or philosophy or theology IMO, and that is why we need to seek the truth through actual data gathering. God and other paranormal things don't seem to perform in the laboratory, but at least we can look at the anecdotal experiences with minimal preconceptions. Of course the Bible is a record of some of these anecdotal experiences of God to whatever degree it is factual.

I guess I would agree with the proposition that our view of God from the perspective of Theology or Philosopy, no matter how good our logical syllogisms might be, leave us wanting with respect to the true "knowledge" of God. But the Bible readily admits that in our present form our knowledge of God is cloudy at best.

• 1Corinthians 13:12-13 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

I also understand that for someone who doesn't necessarily begin with the premise that God is an omnipotent and magnimonous Being, who has intervened both communically and physically with us, they may view the Bible as subjective testimony. The Bible might appear to them as simply a collection of random anecdotes and testimonies of experiences by those who believe they have been influenced and touched by the God who has revealed Himself in the collective history recorded in that Book. Backtracking through my memories of living in unbelief, followed by agnosticism, I really did believe there was a God. It was just not the one that had tradionally been defined to me. What I did understand in me was this great big hole and yearning that left me feeling displaced and disconnected. I became a seeker for the truth and I didn't start with the God of the Bible because of strong biases against it as well as visible hypocrisies in some of those considered religious. Despite all that my testimony is God drew me in anyway and I believe He will to all who sincerly seek the Truth.

My experiences as a Christian has been that people come to faith in Christ in many diverse ways. Some of them most church people would say is highly untraditional. What most Christians believe is that you preach the Gospel and if the Holy Spirit opens the ears and heart they will repent of their sins and follow Christ. Obviously I agree with those methods since Jesus commissioned them. But I have also seen it work the other way in that something they consider miraculousI happens in their life and they seek out Christians never having heard the Gospel. So can someone be studying the physical universe or seeking the truths about the laws that seem to govern subatomic particles and be led to God?Absolutely, I do believe it can open the doors to belief in the same way miracles can. Does the data found in the physical sciences tell us anything about our God. I believe it does and that does not disagree with the Bible.

• Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork.
• Psalms 50:6 Let the heavens declare His righteousness
• Psalms 97:6 The heavens declare His righteousness, and all the peoples see His glory.

I'm a firm believer in the postulate that "all truth is God's truth". Finite nature and the study of our physical world and universe can indeed give us inferences about an eternal Creator, although we postulate Him outside of finite time and space. I believe there are abundant fruits within that tree of knowledge to nourish us. However, to mix a metaphor, climbing that tree can sometimes be akin to trudging through a swamp. Sensing the proper vectors out of that swamp of data has the potential to lead us in all sorts of directions. True, we could backtrack, move forward, or sideways and eventually find ourselves on solid ground again; if we avoid the gators. However, that doesn't preclude our course is the most optimal way available. I feel that all those who pursue truth will find Christ eventually. Some of my own brothers and sisters might consider me naive in believing that. Saying that, however, does not proclude me from proclaming the Gospel; for I believe it's the power of God unto salvation - and the optimal Way. However, Jesus also taught that those who love the truth will come to understand Him and desire Him as their Lord. So, no matter if we become His from our youth or roam about finding Him later in life, I would say God is very patient indeed. He proclaimed that He was the Way, the Truth and the Light, so I believe seeking any of the three will get you there.

• John 18:37-38a Pilate therefore said to Him, "Are You a king then?" Jesus answered, "You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?"

Correct me if wrong but I believe you are proposing the following as a method for finding truths of God's existence or non-existence, as well as God's character in a more data driven way. Is this pretty much it?

• Data such as we use in Quantum mechanics may help us to understand how and where God might intervene in his creation?

QM may not be the best way to determine how God operates or "Is". I say that because QM esposes itself to be indeterminate on the nature of subatomic particles in many respects and relies heavily on probablity. My experiences tell me that statistical approaches helped me in resolving some nasty engineering problems and in choosing pragmatic business solutions. We also relied heavily on data mining in order to better predict the scope of our issue and failure profiles. Therefore understanding how specific data relates back to any subject that contains tidbits of existential truths can be useful. So, there is nothing wrong with your premise, if indeed I interpreted it correctly. All thing have some value but not all things are necessarily the expedient way forward. I am referring to the human soul and its need for God once again. I certainly would never throw the baby out with the bath water when investigating how finite truths might provide me with some inferences as to God's ways. I'm speaking of course about dismissing the experiences and testimonies of others who have claimed to have been touched by God - whether in our contemporary domain or in the Bible. I would never ignore the experiences of my customers and stakeholders as factors in gaining understanding so it follows examining the claims of the Bible should be part of the data mine you speak of. As to what rises as truth and what does not I'd defer to Jesus, who said:

• Matthew 7:15-20 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

That seems to be good advice when it comes to the truth.

Yep, I read the entire Bible several times when I was a teenager. (I'm 52 now, so that was a while ago.) I actually bought a pocket ESV NT a few months ago, because I wanted to see if I would get anything out of it in my current religious state. I just haven't had the energy to read anything lately.

That's good Cloudyday2. I guess timing is everything. I was issued a pocket Bible when I went into the military. Honestly I only read it once in a while and didn't quite get the language of the King James. When I was in a bad spot I'd go and read some of it again and was somewhat amazed by some of what it said, even though it did not change me. When I finally did come to belief then I couldn't stop reading it at all and it was then that it really began impacting my life and transforming my mind. Even today as I read it still affects me deeply and has impact upon me. It remains as fresh as the morning dew, even reading passages I've been over numerous times. I'll never tire of God telling me about His love for all of us. I'm just sold out for that kind of love and will never be going back to who I once was. Unlike me, who needed a jumpstart, I have seen people just read it on their own and come to deep belief in Christ. Praying for your energy levels.
May God bless you, John 17:20

 

[Chesterton]

I assume that until the 20th century a scientist would have felt confident that ideas like particles and waves were clearly defined and useful for understanding the world. Then the scientists gradually discovered problems with those ideas and other ideas that seemed so obvious before.

So I wonder if scientists should be a little more humble in their proclamations about God, Creation, and other mysteries? What do you think?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I've always felt there is a lot more gray rather than black/white in science, and that book seemed to confirm this for me.

This is quite true.

Science is not "black/white" dependable for many things,
and
for nothing spiritual is it useful. (it cannot grasp nor comprehend LIFE nor SPIRIT) .

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That is true, but where do we look for the given revelation of God
- the Bible?

Yes and no. Yes: The Bible IS Yahweh's Breathed Inspired Word.
No: no natural man, no natural mind, can grasp it. "Revelation Revealed BY ABBA is required, His Granting His Understanding." Thus, since this is required, and the ONLY WAY, His disciples living and abiding daily IN UNION with JESUS and with the FATHER, agree. ONE WORD, ONE FAITH, ONE IMMERSION, ONE SPIRIT.... all with ONE HEART and ONE MIND in CHRIST JESUS ! (echad, as Jesus says in John 17, and other places in Scripture, including Psalms)

- the traditions of some version of Christianity?

No. Mostly those oppose the truth.

- the design of the natural world?

No. The Kingdom of Yahweh does not come in a way that can be seen by the eyes. The physical cannot comprehend the spiritual. As Jesus Told those who asked: "You must be born again" By the Will of the Father from Heaven - not by the will of man, nor of the flesh (none of man's ways) .

- trusted anecdotes from our own lives and/or the lives of friends and family?

No. The whole world is doomed and is in rebellion against Yahweh and against Jesus and against His born again ones who live in and by and follow Jesus DAILY, continually.

- commonalities in the world's many religions (if any)?

All being "INTEAD of CHRIST"/ i.e. Anti-Christ/ abominations to the Father in Heaven, so , no.

- philosophical reasoning from abstract models hoped to be applicable to the extreme domains of mystery?

hahaha...... yeah, no.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So I wonder if scientists should be a little more humble in their proclamations about God, Creation, and other mysteries? What do you think?

Yahweh may show grace to the humble (repentant who turns to Him).

Like all the ones Yahweh gave to Jesus, whom Jesus called to follow Him,
and had to give up everything to be His disciples, as Jesus Says.

 

[cloudyday2]

I assume that until the 20th century a scientist would have felt confident that ideas like particles and waves were clearly defined and useful for understanding the world. Then the scientists gradually discovered problems with those ideas and other ideas that seemed so obvious before.

So I wonder if scientists should be a little more humble in their proclamations about God, Creation, and other mysteries? What do you think?

Scientists ALWAYS infer from events in the natural world - unlike philosophers and theologians who basically can claim anything that suits their fancies. Scientists (when they are behaving like scientists) humbly abide within their limitations, and philosophers do not. As Dirty Harry said, "a man's got to know his limitations".

 

[Chesterton]

Scientists (when they are behaving like scientists) humbly abide within their limitations, and philosophers do not.

Three (maybe 2 1/2) of the Four Horsemen of atheism are scientists. So would you agree we can disregard everything Dawkins and Harris and Dennett say when they're not practicing science?

 

[cloudyday2]

Three (maybe 2 1/2) of the Four Horsemen of atheism are scientists. So would you agree we can disregard everything Dawkins and Harris and Dennett say when they're not practicing science?

I'm not very familiar with what those guys say, and it is entirely legitimate for scientists to highlight conflicts they notice between religious claims and scientific claims. For example, a geologist is legitimate when he/she argues against the belief that the universe is only 6000 years old. On the other hand, there are a few scientists who can argue the opposite on behalf of young earth creationism, and they should not be ignored either.

I agree that Hawkings should be ignored when he makes generic claims about the non-existence of God/god(s) of any kind (if that is what he claimed). On the other hand, if Hawkings was only providing a scenario where God/god(s) are NOT necessary (in defiance of some philosophers and theologians who claim the opposite) then he should not be ignored.

 

[John 1720]

Scientists ALWAYS infer from events in the natural world - unlike philosophers and theologians who basically can claim anything that suits their fancies. Scientists (when they are behaving like scientists) humbly abide within their limitations, and philosophers do not. As Dirty Harry said, "a man's got to know his limitations".

Good Morning Cloudyday2,
I apologize for jumping into a dialog between you and someone else but I think you may be, rather unintentionally, painting both scientists and theologians with a very broad brush. If it weren't for peer review a lot of junk by certified scientists would pass for science, such as cold fusion.

• Fleischmann–Pons experiment - Wikipedia

The truth is that even with peer review scientists can still be guilty of self promotion and peers can be fooled into jumping on the bandwagon, as was the case in the episode of Piltdown man.

• Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

I would also add that Theology is both systematic and built on logic as well. The framework they work must also be exegetical, although many modern theologians have come off the rails in the department. Philosophy also uses logical syllogisms to build upon what it postulates. Philosophy became the mother of our modern science when it married it's father, mathematics yielding our present scientific methodology. So, I'd disagree that "philosophers and theologians … basically can claim anything that suits their fancies"

• Systematic theology - Wikipedia
• https://www.researchgate.net/post/Philosophy_and_Science_what_is_the_connection

You also have the father of Physics, Newton, and Calculus, Leibnitz, writing theological treatises as just two examples. So science, scientists, philosophy and theology are hardly antithetical to one another. They are simply exploring truths from different angles.
Anyhow, sorry to interrupt and add my 2 cents to the ante but believe the efforts of scientists, theologians and philosophers do not necesarily have to be mutually exclusive.
In Christ, John 17:20