Science and Logic

[Calminian]

But you are treating the accounts as straightforward description of events. That involves using a certain interpretive principle.

Yes, and that principle is called exegesis—letting the author indicate how his writings are to be interpreted. This is how the text has been interpreted for thousands of years from the time it was penned. Even the allegorists of the early church believed Genesis to be a historical narrative account. Even Augustine, who was heavy in allegory, believe the creation to be a supernatural event, and genesis to be an historical narrative.

But as of late, due to the influence of scientism, eisegesis—reading meaning into the text from outside sources—has become the preferred method. This has lead to the idea that nothing in Genesis must be literal because it contradicts natural theories about origins. Good for science, but bad for logical reasoning.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, and that principle is called exegesis—letting the author indicate how his writings are to be interpreted.

Your definition of exegesis is partially right. We want to read the text as the author intended it to be read. But the author in this case does not indicate whether or not the text is to be read as objective description.

To assume the text is objective description requires a hermeneutic principle variously called "plain sense" or "common sense" or "literal-historic". It is that interpretive principle that must be justified---and on a better basis than "that's how it has always be interpreted."

In fact, that is not how it has always been interpreted. The "common sense" readings of scripture only came into vogue with the Enlightenment and the desire to present scripture as conforming to the standards of objective "scientific" description.

There are plenty of literary & contextual reasons to justify a different intent on the part of the author.

Even the allegorists of the early church believed Genesis to be a historical narrative account.

We cannot presume to know, however, what they would have concluded with a different data base. After all, we seldom use their allegories any more. Why not? If their authority is to be cited in favour of Genesis as empirical history, we should be taking their allegorical interpretations with equal seriousness based on the same criteria of authority. If we drop the allegories, we can, given adequate reason, also drop naive historicism.

But as of late, due to the influence of scientism, eisegesis—reading meaning into the text from outside sources—has become the preferred method.

Actually, scientism also lies at the root of the literal-historical hermeneutic. As society adopted scientific epistemological criteria, the drive to set scripture on the same basis as "truth" generated theories about scripture that accorded with a scientific way of knowing without regard to the actual circumstances of the composition of the text.

To avoid scientism and modern eisegesis, we need to get back to the actual intent of the author so far as we can determine that. That means carefully studying how ideas were formed and communicated in a pre-scientific world.

We also need to take much more seriously the extent to which much of scripture is literary art. A focus on whether a text accords or does not accord with modern science tends to forget the artistic side of scripture and how that directed the composition of the text.

Then there were the political and social realities of the time which were also, always, religious and theological issues as well.

The authors had many options for communicating their primary message over and above a bare description and could well have had motives that prescribed other forms of communication.

This has lead to the idea that nothing in Genesis must be literal because it contradicts natural theories about origins. Good for science, but bad for logical reasoning.

The more important consideration here is whether the Omphalos reasoning is correct. What scriptural reason do we have to assume God deflected a bullet supernaturally, leaving no evidence of his action? What purpose is served by providing evidence in creation that is at odds with what is observed in creation?

We could also analyse the specific miracles you allege for scriptural accuracy and coherency with creation.

 

[Calminian]

Your definition of exegesis is partially right. We want to read the text as the author intended it to be read. But the author in this case does not indicate whether or not the text is to be read as objective description.

Actually the evidence is overwhelming that the author(s) did mean it to be read in a plane straightforward narrative sense. The most obvious reason is the flow from Genesis 11 to Genesis 12 and for that matter all the way to the birth of Christ. Many TE's (whose interpretations are totally modern) believe Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph to be historical figures. I'm assuming you do as well. And of course Exodus explicitly affirms the historicity of these figures in Genesis. Yet TE's believe, generally, Genesis 1-11 to be allegorical. The problem is it's a totally arbitrary division as the texts are even connected with genealogies. There's absolutely nothing to separate the Genesis account from the actual account itself. The only motive comes from a desire to believe in naturalistic theories (eisegesis). This is mind boggling to me, when you take into account that the text unambiguously cites supernatural creative miracles as the cause of the universe. This should tell us that science is going to be limited as an epistemological tool. Yet the desire to confine the Bible to scientific presuppositions is so strong, they end up with an illogical arbitrary hermeneutic. So they sacrifice logic for science.

 

[gluadys]

Actually the evidence is overwhelming that the author(s) did mean it to be read in a plane straightforward narrative sense.

I have not been exposed to such evidence. Perhaps you would like to give some indication of what it is.

The most obvious reason is the flow from Genesis 11 to Genesis 12 and for that matter all the way to the birth of Christ.

I am not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that there is no reason to doubt that everything from Gen. 12:1 on is plain description of empirical events?

Many TE's (whose interpretations are totally modern) believe Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph to be historical figures. I'm assuming you do as well.

The presumed historic existence of individuals does not mean the accounts about them are straightforward history. What reason would there be for the authors to write only empirical history when they had other models of literature and other priorities than recording bare unembellished fact? The valuation of unembellished fact is a fairly recent phenomenon.

And of course Exodus explicitly affirms the historicity of these figures in Genesis.

How so? Are you not again assuming that Exodus itself is only history?

Yet TE's believe, generally, Genesis 1-11 to be allegorical. The problem is it's a totally arbitrary division as the texts are even connected with genealogies.

I agree that to divide scripture into non-history before Gen. 12:1 and history only afterward is quite arbitrary. I don't know of any part of scripture that is plain history. In virtually every part theological and narrative considerations outweigh a plain record of history.

Of course, scripture does intersect with history, but even where it does, narrative & theological considerations generally prevail over objective recording of empirical events.

There's absolutely nothing to separate the Genesis account from the actual account itself.

What "actual account" are you speaking of?

The only motive comes from a desire to believe in naturalistic theories (eisegesis).

I take it you have only been exposed to doubt about the genre of biblical texts in discussions about science. While scientific observation is definitely a consideration, there are many other reasons drawn from literary and textual analysis that are also cogent and some of these were recognized well before the modern era.

This is mind boggling to me, when you take into account that the text unambiguously cites supernatural creative miracles as the cause of the universe.

What the text says is less important than what it means. Citation of miracles in a text not intended to be a description of empirical events does not imply an actual miracle, but a theological statement.

This should tell us that science is going to be limited as an epistemological tool. Yet the desire to confine the Bible to scientific presuppositions is so strong, they end up with an illogical arbitrary hermeneutic.

Yes, that is one reason I have severe doubts about a literal-historical hermeneutic. It restricts scripture to a limited epistemology with illogical results.

I much prefer interpretations that are more sensitive to other ways of knowing and other modes of expression than empiric description.


btw, I notice you did not answer these questions (I have edited the second to make it clearer.) I believe these are important considerations, and I hope you take the time to think about them.

What scriptural reason do we have to assume God deflected a bullet supernaturally, leaving no evidence of his action?

What purpose is served by providing evidence in creation that is at odds with what is thought to be the facts of creation based on scripture?

 

[Calminian]

I have not been exposed to such evidence. Perhaps you would like to give some indication of what it is.

Actually I did. You simply took it another step indicating that you don't believe any of it is literal, which logically was your only option. Perhaps you even doubt the literal resurrection of Christ as does Bishop Spong. He of course claims to be a devout christian and argues that it's not necessary to take such silly stories literally. All that matters is the meaning, not the history. I suppose you would agree with him.

I am not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that there is no reason to doubt that everything from Gen. 12:1 on is plain description of empirical events?

Regarding the simple principle of author's intent, yep, none. Feel free to make your case.

The presumed historic existence of individuals does not mean the accounts about them are straightforward history.

Exactly the argument Spong makes against the Resurrection. Sure you want to go there?

How so? Are you not again assuming that Exodus itself is only history?

Well, the parts of Exodus that are narrative are history, the parts that are legislative are legislative, etc.. But to the naturalist, it must all be allegory because they don't like the miracles mentioned in it.

I agree that to divide scripture into non-history before Gen. 12:1 and history only afterward is quite arbitrary. I don't know of any part of scripture that is plain history. In virtually every part theological and narrative considerations outweigh a plain record of history.

You're asserting this, but by what principle? You claim your reason isn't science, but are not stating your reasons for rejecting the plain reading of the text.

Of course, scripture does intersect with history, but even where it does, narrative & theological considerations generally prevail over objective recording of empirical events.

Again, exactly what Spong says about the resurrection. Do you believe one has to believe it is literal?

you have only been exposed to doubt about the genre of biblical texts in discussions about science. While scientific observation is definitely a consideration, there are many other reasons drawn from literary and textual analysis that are also cogent and some of these were recognized well before the modern era.

Great, let's hear about them. And please clarify, do you also doubt the historicity of all the O.T. books? and the N.T.?

What the text says is less important than what it means. Citation of miracles in a text not intended to be a description of empirical events does not imply an actual miracle, but a theological statement.

So then, do you believe it is necessary to believe in a literal resurrection? Of so why? If not, why not?

Yes, that is one reason I have severe doubts about a literal-historical hermeneutic. It restricts scripture to a limited epistemology with illogical results.

If a book is historical it limits it to being illogical? Are you're not confusing science and logic again? Do you believe miracles are illogical?

e you did not answer these questions (I have edited the second to make it clearer.) I believe these are important considerations, and I hope you take the time to think about them.

I actually have read quite a bit about Bishop Spong's reasoning.

What scriptural reason do we have to assume God deflected a bullet supernaturally, leaving no evidence of his action?

Of course there was evidence left behind in the hypothetical. There was a hole. The problem is not the evidence, but the presuppositions used to interpret it. In the case of the Bible you have a written account stating what happened. Testimony is also evidence, but you refuse to believe it. This isn't God's fault.

 

[gluadys]

Actually I did. You simply took it another step indicating that you don't believe any of it is literal, which logically was your only option. Perhaps you even doubt the literal resurrection of Christ

"literal" I have found, is a slippery word that means different things to different people. So before I respond, I would need to know what you mean by "literal".

I am guessing that you mean "real" or "actual". If that is what you mean, I would prefer you use those terms instead of "literal" so that the latter term can be used a bit more strictly in line with its original meaning relating it to the letter of the text.

as does Bishop Spong. He of course claims to be a devout christian and argues that it's not necessary to take such silly stories literally. All that matters is the meaning, not the history. I suppose you would agree with him.

I have read a little of Spong but not enough to endorse or reject his teaching. You sound as if you are more familiar with him than I am. But I cannot be sure that you are properly representing his position either, so I will not comment further on him.

Regarding the simple principle of author's intent, yep, none. Feel free to make your case.

What do we know of Jesus of Nazareth as a figure of history? Virtually nothing. Nothing at all outside the gospels. But the gospels are not primarily history. They are primarily proclamation. Everything in the gospels is designed to present Jesus as the risen Christ--even the story of the annunciation.

There is no pre-crucifixion Jesus in the gospels. So they are not straightforward history.

Well, the parts of Exodus that are narrative are history, the parts that are legislative are legislative, etc.. But to the naturalist, it must all be allegory because they don't like the miracles mentioned in it.

Well, I am not a naturalist then (actually, as you might expect, I am a student of literature). I have no problem with miracles and I don't know of a miracle in Exodus that would be problematical.

But I would still hardly see Exodus as simply reported history. There is much more to it than that. The Exodus and the giving of the Law are the constitutive myths of the nation of Israel. They are the foundation of Israel's covenant with Yahweh and are repeated as a mythic narrative again and again in scripture and in Israel's worship. The primary purpose of the recitation is theological mnemonics. These stories told (and still tell) the people of Israel who they are in relation to their God.

You're asserting this, but by what principle? You claim your reason isn't science, but are not stating your reasons for rejecting the plain reading of the text.

I would hesitate to say I reject the plain reading of the text. Rather I do not see the plain reading as an objective description of an empirical event. To me, the creation accounts come across plainly as narratives with theological purpose.

For example: why seven days? The "description" answer is that seven days means seven days and that's that. The narrative answer looks to the context. Seven is the number of visible heavenly bodies other than the fixed stars: sun, moon, five wandering stars. The dominant civilizations of the time treated all these heavenly bodies as gods and named the days after them (names we still keep: Sun day, Moon day, Tir's day, Woden's day, Thor's day, etc.) So the author of Genesis apportions his narrative over seven days to affirm that one God is lord of all the days and that all the gods of the nations are actually creatures made by God.

In short, there is a perfectly good theological and narrative reason for seven days that does not require them to be an actual observable period of time in the history of the universe. This is a meaning that would be clear and important to the original audience and so, in my view it IS a plain reading of the text.

Great, let's hear about them. And please clarify, do you also doubt the historicity of all the O.T. books? and the N.T.?

Again, it is not so much a matter of doubting the historical elements, but of seeing how they are intertwined --to the point of being inseparable from--the non-literal elements. No history can be read in scripture apart from the overriding theological purposes.

If a book is historical it limits it to being illogical? Are you're not confusing science and logic again?

Depends on the book of course. A book not intended to be history, interpreted as if it were intended to be history ends up being taken to illogical conclusions.

Do you believe miracles are illogical?

Of course. If they were logical, we would be able to explain them with logic. Since they transcend logic, we can't.

Of course there was evidence left behind in the hypothetical. There was a hole.

That was not evidence of the deflection. There was no evidence that the path of the bullet was deflected. That, I understood, was the point of the hypothetical.

With no evidence of deflection, the bullet hole places the gun at a particular position. It is only if you have evidence of deflection (as in the case of a ricochet) that you can place the gun elsewhere.

And you agreed that the investigation ought to proceed as if there had been no deflection, since there was no evidence of one.

Now you want to claim the equivalent of undetectable deflections in the history of the universe. Why? According to scripture, what would the purpose of such miracles be?

Does scripture ever record a miracle that is undetectable? Or a miracle that has no purpose?

If not, why do you want to introduce such a thing into natural history?

Also, you still have not answered the second question:

What purpose is served by providing evidence in creation that is at odds with what is thought to be the facts of creation based on scripture?

 

[Calminian]

Of course. If they were logical, we would be able to explain them with logic. Since they transcend logic, we can't.

Bingo! I knew it. You don't understand the difference between science and logic. I've tried to explain, but I know you're not going to listen to me. Maybe someone can reach you about this. There's nothing illogical about miracles. Even Hume and Flew didn't make such arguments.

That was not evidence of the deflection. There was no evidence that the path of the bullet was deflected. That, I understood, was the point of the hypothetical.

With no evidence of deflection, the bullet hole places the gun at a particular position. It is only if you have evidence of deflection (as in the case of a ricochet) that you can place the gun elsewhere.

Yes, but the scriptures have the account written down for us, so the miracle has been revealed in testimonial evidence. You just won't accept it because it contradicts science which presupposes naturalism.

And you agreed that the investigation ought to proceed as if there had been no deflection, since there was no evidence of one.

Yes because it's not of scripture. I draw the line at biblical accounts of miracles. I believe those because the Bible has proven to be reliable. You trust naturalism first, the Bible second.

Now you want to claim the equivalent of undetectable deflections in the history of the universe. Why? According to scripture, what would the purpose of such miracles be?

The purpose of the creation was to create. Is that so hard? There's a reason behind every miracle, but reasons are also outside the realm of science. It is limited to material cause and effect. Choices based on reason can never be evaluated scientifically.

Does scripture ever record a miracle that is undetectable? Or a miracle that has no purpose?

By science, all miracles are undetectable. Miracles are not testable, nor repeatable, nor predictable, nor detectable in the past, by definition.

What purpose is served by providing evidence in creation that is at odds with what is thought to be the facts of creation based on scripture?

But what you're doing is taking that evidence and looking at it through naturalistic presuppositions. God never told you to do that. In fact, what you're doing is actually circular reasoning. You are drawing a conclusion based on a starting premise (naturalism). This is what you did earlier with one of your syllogisms. You just... I don't know how to say this nicely but it needs to be said.... you don't have good reasoning skills. Until that changes, theology will not be a strong subject for you. In fact this is an issue with many scientists. They are good at science, lousy at philosophical reasoning.

Back to Bishop Spong. Unfortunately you are very close to him in your reasoning. Every argument you use, he uses to deny the literal physical resurrection of Christ. This is a good example of the damage that naturalism imposed on scripture can cause. You probably don't like the fact that he does this, but you couldn't possibly criticize him because you do the same thing.

You also seem to believe that just because there's purpose and theology behind something, this somehow proves it is not literal. Again, Spong uses the same reasoning. There is certainly purpose and theology behind the resurrection, therefore it must be non-literal. There was purpose and theology behind the order of the creation days, therefore it must be non-literal. You and he are doing the same thing. You're putting naturalism before the word of God.

 

[gluadys]

Bingo! I knew it. You don't understand the difference between science and logic. I've tried to explain, but I know you're not going to listen to me. Maybe someone can reach you about this. There's nothing illogical about miracles. Even Hume and Flew didn't make such arguments.

Well, I didn't do all that badly in logic class, so perhaps I am missing something here.

As I see it, we discover natural processes through observation and logic. So when we get something that doesn't fit into that logic, it sounds illogical.

Yes, but the scriptures have the account written down for us, so the miracle has been revealed in testimonial evidence. You just won't accept it because it contradicts science which presupposes naturalism.

Actually, I was attracted to non-empirical interpretations of scripture for many reasons other than science. I was a late-comer to science, but seeing scripture as literature rather than science made sense to me when I was still ignoring science. C.S. Lewis was more influential in developing my views of scripture than anything in science.

As it happens, it works well from a scientific perspective as well in that I don't have to claim as science what is clearly not.

Yes because it's not of scripture. I draw the line at biblical accounts of miracles.

Let's be clear that we are not speaking of all biblical miracles. I said, for example, that I have no problem with the miracles in Exodus or the miracles associated with Elijah. What I object to are miracles that are actually not recorded in scripture but assumed in order to support a particular interpretation of the creation accounts.

This is not to say that creation as such is not miraculous. Of course creation is miraculous. To bring existence out of non-existence is miraculous.

But to hold that by some miracle a 6,000 year old earth is made to appear 4.5 billion years old, when no such miracle is alluded to in scripture is quite a different thing.

It is not scripture that comes first in your thinking, but a special interpretation of scripture, since it is only on the assumption of that interpretation that you even get a 6,000 year-old earth anyway. Before one can even start from there, you need to justify that interpretation. Why should I hold that a literary gem like the first creation account is a "scientific" report of actual empirical events?

I believe those because the Bible has proven to be reliable.

Who said anything about the Bible not being reliable?

You trust naturalism first, the Bible second.

I trust God first. I don't have a reason for him to hide miracles. I don't have a reason for him to provide evidence of a particular age of the earth that is not correct. I don't have a reason for creation and scripture to be telling different stories.

The purpose of the creation was to create. Is that so hard?

But what is the purpose of concealing the true age of the earth? Of providing evidence that the earth is billions of years old, and the universe as a whole even older, if they are not? What is the purpose of providing evidence that humanity shares a common biological heritage with other apes if they do not?

There's a reason behind every miracle, but reasons are also outside the realm of science.

Of course, but we are given reasons for miracles the bible records. We are not given reason for these miracles not mentioned in scripture, which are only conjured up out of thin air to support an interpretation of scripture that was doubtful even before science came on the scene.

I am not asking for a scientific reason. I am asking for a theological reason, a scriptural reason, one that accords with what we know of God.

Example: why did a pillar of cloud and light appear to the Israelites? To assure them of the continuing presence of Yahweh and to guide them through the desert.

That is not a scientific explanation of the miracle, nor would I ever expect science to explain the miracle. But it is a theological reason for the miracle.

By science, all miracles are undetectable.

Nonsense. That is like saying the guests at Cana did not drink wine or that the five thousand did not actually feed on bread.

Miracles are not testable, nor repeatable, nor predictable, nor detectable in the past, by definition.

And undetectable miracles for which there is no attestation should therefore not be posited. We know that Omphalos is always a possibility. That is a given which is unprovable. But it is not a basis on which to understand anything about nature's ways or God's ways.

But what you're doing is taking that evidence and looking at it through naturalistic presuppositions. God never told you to do that.

I am not sure what pre-suppositions you mean. Can you be specific? As far as I am concerned, I look at nature exactly as God tells me. For God tells me that his creation is ordered and reliable and that he sustains that order so that we can live in the world. That is the basis on which science is done.

In fact, what you're doing is actually circular reasoning. You are drawing a conclusion based on a starting premise (naturalism).

I think my basis is scriptural and theological. God is not a God of confusion. He does not make the sun to rise one day and not another, or in the east one day and in the west another. He does not use supernatural means when he had made a nature which provides the means.

When he does use supernatural means, as in sending fire on Elijah's sacrifice, it is visible, not undetectable, and it is for sound theological reasons.

In fact this is an issue with many scientists. They are good at science, lousy at philosophical reasoning.

Actually, maybe the problem is that I am not a scientist. So I don't have the background discipline in that sort of thinking.

I did, on the other hand, study philosophy.

Back to Bishop Spong.

Why? I said that I haven't read much of his work, so references to him don't mean much to me.

You also seem to believe that just because there's purpose and theology behind something, this somehow proves it is not literal.

I asked you to define "literal" as you use it. There is not much point debating whether something is "literal" if we are not saying the same thing by the term.

 

[chaoschristian]

You just... I don't know how to say this nicely but it needs to be said.... you don't have good reasoning skills. Until that changes, theology will not be a strong subject for you.

Wait . . . you said this of gluadys?

That's worthy of a schizoid man scream.

 

[stumpjumper]

Indeed^

One reason why I think they should have a negative rep button around here

 

[gluadys]

You just won't accept it because it contradicts science which presupposes naturalism.



You trust naturalism first, the Bible second.


But what you're doing is taking that evidence and looking at it through naturalistic presuppositions.


You and he are doing the same thing. You're putting naturalism before the word of God.

I think I see a pattern here that is leading you down the wrong road. Apparently you think the basis of all non-empirical readings of scripture are based on a rejection of miracles and supernaturalism. While that would certainly hold true for philosophical naturalists, it cannot hold true for theists.

I have asserted several times that I have no problem with miracles and supernaturalism generally. I want you to take that seriously and think about revising your hypotheses as to why theists like me still reject young-earth creationism and the hermeneutic it is built on.


Perhaps we need to deal with some other types of questions.

Here are some that occur to me:

1. In general, what is the purpose of a miracle?


2. Do you understand the difference between physics and metaphysics?


3. Is there such a thing as metaphysical reality?


4. What does it mean to say that something is "literally" true?


I think that if we understand where we come from on these questions, we can stop talking in circles about naturalism, when that is not the issue at all.

 

[Calminian]

Well, I didn't do all that badly in logic class, so perhaps I am missing something here.

As I see it, we discover natural processes through observation and logic. So when we get something that doesn't fit into that logic, it sounds illogical.

Honestly, if you got anything above a D, you should go back to that school and sue. Even the statement above reveals a very real problem. You say, we discover natural processes through observation and logic. Therefore what does not fit into that is illogical.

Observation + logic is science.
Therefore whatever is not science is illogical

Take this back to your logic professor and threaten him/her with a lawsuit if they don't help you out immediately. Trust me, you have a case! I'm of course one of these evil YECers so nothing I say is going to penetrate (which is of course an informal fallacy, but nevertheless). And if you do receive any penal damages, I think conscience would persuade you to share a small percentage with me, but I digress.

Actually, I was attracted to non-empirical interpretations of scripture for many reasons other than science. I was a late-comer to science, but seeing scripture as literature rather than science made sense to me when I was still ignoring science. C.S. Lewis was more influential in developing my views of scripture than anything in science.

I'm not buying any of this until you actually explain why the scripture as literature precludes it from being actual historical narrative.

Let's be clear that we are not speaking of all biblical miracles. I said, for example, that I have no problem with the miracles in Exodus or the miracles associated with Elijah. What I object to are miracles that are actually not recorded in scripture but assumed in order to support a particular interpretation of the creation accounts.

But you haven't explained why you reject these clearly communicated miracles. Is it just a feeling or is there some investigative method you're following. And remember, you can't use science as an excuse.

This is not to say that creation as such is not miraculous. Of course creation is miraculous. To bring existence out of non-existence is miraculous.

The contradictions overflow.

But to hold that by some miracle a 6,000 year old earth is made to appear 4.5 billion years old, when no such miracle is alluded to in scripture is quite a different thing.

You're appealing to science again (eisegesis). And the earth does look 6,000 years old to me. Why doesn't it to you? Hint: naturalism is part of your premise.

It is not scripture that comes first in your thinking, but a special interpretation of scripture, since it is only on the assumption of that interpretation that you even get a 6,000 year-old earth anyway. Before one can even start from there, you need to justify that interpretation. Why should I hold that a literary gem like the first creation account is a "scientific" report of actual empirical events?

I already explained my case. It's a simple inductive case of looking at the rest of the book and books that follow and seeing how they're all linked together as one continuous story. And now, even you have admitted to believing part of it is historical, which means you've made an arbitrary division that you need to explain.

I trust God first. I don't have a reason for him to hide miracles. I don't have a reason for him to provide evidence of a particular age of the earth that is not correct. I don't have a reason for creation and scripture to be telling different stories.

But you don't trust Him to create a reliable record. You test it by science, then inject the meanings you want. That's not trust.

But what is the purpose of concealing the true age of the earth?

He didn't conceal it. You're just mad that He didn't use a process that you can verify with science. But He did reveal it and you refuse to believe Him because you insist on using naturalism as your starting premise.

Of providing evidence that the earth is billions of years old, and the universe as a whole even older, if they are not? What is the purpose of providing evidence that humanity shares a common biological heritage with other apes if they do not?

None. What is the purpose of investigating God and His bible with the starting premise of naturalism?

Of course, but we are given reasons for miracles the bible records. We are not given reason for these miracles not mentioned in scripture, which are only conjured up out of thin air to support an interpretation of scripture that was doubtful even before science came on the scene.

So you think the 6 day creation in Gen. 1 is not really a part of the Bible. How do you believe it got in there? You don't believe Ex. 20:9-11 belongs in scripture either? Who do you suppose made up these terrible lies?

Example: why did a pillar of cloud and light appear to the Israelites? To assure them of the continuing presence of Yahweh and to guide them through the desert.

That is not a scientific explanation of the miracle, nor would I ever expect science to explain the miracle. But it is a theological reason for the miracle.

I'm not sure what you're asking. If your asking why God took six days, rather than 6 billions years or 6 minutes, one reason might have been to establish the work week with one rest day. It's also logical that He would create environments before creating their inhabitants. Thus the land, sea and expanse, preceded the land and sea creatures and the stars. I see a very logical framework in the creation week.

But if from that you conclude that it must not be literal (real history) then unfortunately you've slipped back into illogical thinking. This is the same argument Spong makes to deny the historical physical resurrection of Christ.

And undetectable miracles for which there is no attestation should therefore not be posited. We know that Omphalos is always a possibility. That is a given which is unprovable. But it is not a basis on which to understand anything about nature's ways or God's ways.

Right! Only biblical miracles should be believed and yes, even over scientific naturalistic presuppositions.

I am not sure what pre-suppositions you mean.

All this time, you've had no idea what a presuppositions are? This explains much. I wish you'd have told me this earlier. Do you have a dictionary, by any chance?

I think my basis is scriptural and theological. God is not a God of confusion.

Another informal fallacy—blaming God for your confusion.

He does not make the sun to rise one day and not another, or in the east one day and in the west another. He does not use supernatural means when he had made a nature which provides the means.

He has intervened with the Sun's movements (relative to the earth) before and in the future He'll alter it permanently.

When he does use supernatural means, as in sending fire on Elijah's sacrifice, it is visible, not undetectable, and it is for sound theological reasons.

Really! Great, please tell me how you've verified through science this miracle has really happened.

Actually, maybe the problem is that I am not a scientist. So I don't have the background discipline in that sort of thinking.

Believe me, science is not your problem. It's basic logical reasoning.

I did, on the other hand, study philosophy.

Like I said, keep me in mind if penalties are awarded.

Why? I said that I haven't read much of his work, so references to him don't mean much to me.

Doesn't really matter. No need to dodge. Pretend I'm him making the point that there is no reason for me to believe in a physical resurrection so long as I understand the meaning behind the myth. After all, I merely look at scripture as literature, not a medical science book.

I asked you to define "literal" as you use it. There is not much point debating whether something is "literal" if we are not saying the same thing by the term.

Again, don't you have a dictionary you can consult?
How about this:
Literal— adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression

Here's some more:

Exegesis—the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text and its historical and literary context.
Eisegesis—the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of sources outside of the text and its historical and literary context.
Presupposition—to suppose beforehand

And in case you're now quite clear on this: While scripture is not always literal, it should always be approached exegetically. Words to live by!

 

[gluadys]

You say, we discover natural processes through observation and logic. Therefore what does not fit into that is illogical.

Observation + logic is science.
Therefore whatever is not science is illogical

Not quite. Empirical observation distinguishes science, which uses logic, from logic which does not use observation. You can play around with lots of logic games as long as you don't reference them to empirical observation. The logic will be valid, but the conclusions will be either unobservable, untestable or untrue.

I'm not buying any of this until you actually explain why the scripture as literature precludes it from being actual historical narrative.

It doesn't necessarily, but it does mean we should suspect more than observation in a literary document. And we should suspect other than observation as well. In the secular world, for example, we know that historical fiction is not history even though it includes a lot of verifiable history. Then, in a post-modern sense, all of history is historical fiction of sorts anyway.

Tell me, do you have something against story-telling? Do you think stories are only for children and in some way inferior to truth?

But you haven't explained why you reject these clearly communicated miracles.

Could you please be specific as to which miracles you are referring to? Remember, miracles per se are not the problem.

Is it just a feeling or is there some investigative method you're following. And remember, you can't use science as an excuse.

I can use creation as an excuse though. Why do you insist that creation and scripture tell different stories?

You're appealing to science again (eisegesis). And the earth does look 6,000 years old to me. Why doesn't it to you? Hint: naturalism is part of your premise.

No, naturalism is not part of my premise, but nature is.

[What do you mean by "naturalism"? Do you think all study of nature requires a "naturalistic" perspective?]

I already explained my case. It's a simple inductive case of looking at the rest of the book and books that follow and seeing how they're all linked together as one continuous story.

Oh, I agree, there is a grand narrative that runs through all of scripture. Why that demands a literal-historical hermeneutic is something you have yet to explain.

And now, even you have admitted to believing part of it is historical, which means you've made an arbitrary division that you need to explain.

Not really since I don't think scripture can be separated into historical and non-historical elements easily. The history is always embedded into a narrative that is primarily theological. Where the history ends and the theology begins is usually a judgment call.

But you don't trust Him to create a reliable record. You test it by science, then inject the meanings you want. That's not trust.

Sounds like you need a short course in scientific method.

He didn't conceal it. You're just mad that He didn't use a process that you can verify with science.

Actually, I would be quite happy with a process not verifiable by science, if that is what we found in nature. It is because we DO have observed processes in nature that do explain various aspects of creation that I ask why we need to posit miracles for which there is neither scriptural nor created evidence.

Do you have something against nature glorifying God?

But He did reveal it and you refuse to believe Him because you insist on using naturalism as your starting premise.

But if you are correct, God did conceal it. Either the earth is really 4.5 billion years old, but that is concealed in scripture by a declaration that it is only 6,000 years old, or the earth is only 6,000 years old and that is concealed from observation in creation.

Why does God make scripture and creation tell different stories such that the true age of the earth is concealed?

What is the point of such a miracle? And why does scripture not tell us of this miracle?

None.

Really? Where does scripture support the concept that God just throws miracles into creation on a whim, without rhyme or reason? And without making them known to anyone.

You must know that this suggests a trickster deity. You give to Yahweh the characteristics of Loki or Anansi or Raven. Why?

btw, since you are into philosophy, a comment on Descartes' demon would be appropriate here.

What is the purpose of investigating God and His bible with the starting premise of naturalism?

I don't start with naturalism (unless you are defining naturalism differently than I am accustomed to). I start with the doctrine of creation and the will of God toward creation.

So you think the 6 day creation in Gen. 1 is not really a part of the Bible. How do you believe it got in there?

Apparently you did not read my earlier literary analysis of the first creation account. Of course the six days (actually seven) are there in the text. The question is whether they exist outside the text - in an empirical way.

You don't believe Ex. 20:9-11 belongs in scripture either? Who do you suppose made up these terrible lies?

What lies? I haven't seen any lies and I haven't proposed that there are any lies.

I'm not sure what you're asking. If your asking why God took six days, rather than 6 billions years or 6 minutes, one reason might have been to establish the work week with one rest day. It's also logical that He would create environments before creating their inhabitants. Thus the land, sea and expanse, preceded the land and sea creatures and the stars.

That would be a scientific reason. And it assumes the narrative is a scientific narrative. Now who is using a naturalistic perspective?

You still have given no reason to assume the narrative is scientific.

You have given no reason why, on the assumption that the narrative is scientific, that it does not accord with scientific observation.

The disconnect between the creation accounts understood as science and actual scientific observation of creation leads to the positing of your hypothetical miracles. It is the only way to resolve a conflict between two ostensibly scientific accounts.

But there is no theological or scriptural basis for the hypothetical miracles.

I see a very logical framework in the creation week.

So do I. But it is not scientific logic, nor does it require positing imaginary miracles.

But if from that you conclude that it must not be literal (real history) then unfortunately you've slipped back into illogical thinking. This is the same argument Spong makes to deny the historical physical resurrection of Christ.

Enough with Spong already. I am not going to defend or oppose a theology I am not familiar with. Especially when I am hearing it indirectly from someone who profoundly disagrees with him and may therefore (albeit subconcsciously) be misrepresenting his actual position.

Right! Only biblical miracles should be believed and yes, even over scientific naturalistic presuppositions.

Again, miracles, biblical or not, are not the issue. It is the specific miracles demanded by your hermeneutic and NOT alluded to in scripture that are the problem.

All this time, you've had no idea what a presuppositions are?

Don't be silly. I did not ask for a definition of pre-suppositions. I asked what specific pre-suppositions you are pre-supposing I am operating from.

I have been straightforward about my pre-suppositions. I believe God created all things. I believe his creation is a "cosmos" i.e. a harmony, an order, a thing of beauty. The order of creation is sustained by a system of regulation embedded in the properties of material particles and the forces governing their relations to each other. I am not skilled in the study of these things myself, but those who are testify that the universe is describable in the terms of elegant mathematics. That, to me, is consistent with the sort of creator we believe is revealed in scripture.

Finally, this order in creation is intelligible i.e. God made us with the sensory and intellectual capacities to perceive the harmony and beauty and regularity he has placed in nature. Given our creation mandate to have dominion over creation, this makes theological sense.

Now, you insist that this theology is all wrong. That creation is not orderly, not intelligible. Why? Because you insist scripture must be what you call "literally real". Why must it be literally real, when that destroys the very concept of creation by any other than a trickster deity who bears no resemblance to the deity in the scriptures you claim to believe?

He has intervened with the Sun's movements (relative to the earth) before and in the future He'll alter it permanently.

But he did so once only for a stated reason and without hiding what he was doing. That is not your undetectable bullet deflection. Nor is it indicative of a God who normally interferes with nature without notice or reason.

Really! Great, please tell me how you've verified through science this miracle has really happened.

You are being silly again. I said the reason was theological. And you said testimony is evidence. Neither, of course, is scientific.

Pretend I'm him making the point that there is no reason for me to believe in a physical resurrection so long as I understand the meaning behind the myth. After all, I merely look at scripture as literature, not a medical science book.

No, I won't because until I do read him (and I admit he is now on my to-be-read list) I don't know that your representation of his position is accurate. If I am going to criticize him it will be for what he says, not what you say he says.

Again, don't you have a dictionary you can consult?

Really! This is the second time you have not discriminated between a general and a specific question. Dictionaries give all uses of a word. I want to know which of those you are using.

How about this:
Literal— adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression

OK, that is better than I usually see.

Now, when I read in a work of fiction that "John entered the room and removed his raincoat." what does it mean to understand this sentence "literally"?

And in case you're now quite clear on this: While scripture is not always literal, it should always be approached exegetically. Words to live by!

I agree. It is your conflation of "exegetical" with "literal-historical" that I dispute.

After all, we also apply exegesis to those texts we all agree are not empirical.

 

[Calminian]

Wow you responded to every sentence I wrote!

Not quite. Empirical observation distinguishes science, which uses logic, from logic which does not use observation.

Huh? One can't make logical deductions or inductions from observation?

You can play around with lots of logic games as long as you don't reference them to empirical observation.

This makes no sense.

The logic will be valid, but the conclusions will be either unobservable, untestable or untrue.

Again, you are hanging onto your scientific presuppositions for dear life. You seem to believe that the only test for truth is science. Yet you also believe in miracles, which contradicts your beliefs about testing truth.

Sorry, I'm just not going to let you get away with this. This is the source of all your confusion.

 

[gluadys]

Huh? One can't make logical deductions or inductions from observation?

LOL

I think you are only the second poster I have met who can read what I say and take from it precisely the opposite meaning from what I intended. I wonder if that is how you read scripture too.

The point is that when science uses logic it is always referenced back to actual observations.

Outside of science, one often finds logic that stands on its own, apart from observations. In fact, one of the problems with medieval "science" was that it was often not observational as well as logical. The scholastics were skilled logicians who knew how to derive valid deductions from the writings of authorities such as Aristotle.

But skilled deduction can lead you down the wrong path when it is not corrected by observation. Hence the need for observation and inductive as well as deductive reasoning.

Since you understand logic, you must be aware that a valid argument does not necessarily have a true conclusion.

You seem to believe that the only test for truth is science.

Actually that again is precisely the opposite of what I believe. It is, however, what appears to be the basis of your hermeneutic. For you, unless scripture is scientifically true, it is not true at all.

I would appreciate your response to the questions in post 51.

 

[Nathan45]

I didn't read this thread, but i made a thread about the scientific method in Crevo a while back, let me dig it up and link it here:

http://christianforums.com/t6121087-naturalism-inductive-reasoning-and-the-scientific-method.html

What makes science different from logic is that science uses inductive reasoning ( experience ) to create it's axioms.

A logical system, on the other hand, usually assumes it's axioms are true before starting. Science doesn't do this, it derives axioms from inductive reasoning, then tests the axioms to make sure they are correct.

Now, science and logic go together, you use logic to discover all of the implications of a scientific theory, and then you can test whether these implications actually occur, testing the theory.

...

anyhow, the reason that scientists appear to assume the supernatural doesn't occur is that it can't be tested.

God says "Don't test God", wheras science is all about testing things repeatedly... so really, never the twain shall meet. Something that is supernatural does not follow a logical or orderly pattern-- it can neither be directly observed nor tested in the laboratory, so science has nothing to say about it.

 

[Calminian]

LOL

I think you are only the second poster I have met who can read what I say and take from it precisely the opposite meaning from what I intended. I wonder if that is how you read scripture too.

I have no desire to get into a tit for tat. I've read your arguments and observed your logical arguments and syllogisms. What can I say? I think there's a problem there. I'm not trying to be mean.

 

[gluadys]

I have no desire to get into a tit for tat. I've read your arguments and observed your logical arguments and syllogisms. What can I say? I think there's a problem there. I'm not trying to be mean.

Maybe we can sort things out better if we try a different pathway.

That is why I posed these questions: to try an open up a new avenue of understanding.

1. In general, what is the purpose of a miracle?


2. Do you understand the difference between physics and metaphysics?


3. Is there such a thing as metaphysical reality?


4. What does it mean to say that something is "literally" true?

 

[Calminian]

I didn't read this thread, but i made a thread about the scientific method in Crevo a while back, let me dig it up and link it here:

http://christianforums.com/t6121087-naturalism-inductive-reasoning-and-the-scientific-method.html

Thanks, I will check it out. This is a subject I'm finding overly relevant and underly discussed.

What makes science different from logic is that science uses inductive reasoning ( experience ) to create it's axioms.

Well it's true that science uses inductive logic, but it also uses deductive logic. It also uses adductive logic to formulate hypotheses. But this is not an adequate description of the actual method. It is a specific methodology based on specific philosophical understandings, most of which are true most of the time. This is why it's so valuable. But is it always the best method all the time? Can something be logical, possible, but unscientific?

A logical system, on the other hand, usually assumes it's axioms are true before starting. Science doesn't do this, it derives axioms from inductive reasoning, then tests the axioms to make sure they are correct.

Nor does inductive logic do this as it doesn't really start with axioms. Deductive logic starts with premises, but afterward it's usually necessary to defend those premises.

Now, science and logic go together, you use logic to discover all of the implications of a scientific theory, and then you can test whether these implications actually occur, testing the theory.

Here's the problem. Science is basically a method that searches for causes, right? But what if there exists a cause that is not part of a repeating pattern that can be tested? I don't even have to cite the supernatural for this. What about freewill in humans? (freewill defined as libertarian or incompatibilistic). How would such a cause outside of direct observation, ever be detected by science? I believe that science can and should only search for certain kinds of causes. Once this is understood, people will not fallaciously used science to try to disprove causes outside of its realm.

anyhow, the reason that scientists appear to assume the supernatural doesn't occur is that it can't be tested.

Well, it can't be tested by science. But there can be testimonial verification (corroborative testimonial evidence). But it's true, that science must presuppose its nonexistence—which doesn't support anything, either way.

God says "Don't test God", wheras science is all about testing things repeatedly...

Er, well, that's a bit out of context. Testing God in that context has nothing to do with the subject at hand, material causes. God has no problem with tests, per se.

2Cor. 13:5 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.

1Th. 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

1John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

[gluadys]

,
Can something be logical, possible, but unscientific?

Yes.

I believe that science can and should only search for certain kinds of causes.

It does. It searches for materially efficient causes. What used to be called "secondary causes" in contrast to the ultimate cause which is God.

It does not search for metaphysical causes or causes which do not conform to an intelligible pattern.

The purpose is to derive observations from efficient causes.

But it's true, that science must presuppose its nonexistence—which doesn't support anything, either way.

This is misleading. Science does not pre-suppose the non-existence of the supernatural. It does recognize that the supernatural is not scientifically testable and is therefore outside the purview of science.

Er, well, that's a bit out of context. Testing God in that context has nothing to do with the subject at hand, material causes.

I agree. Science is not about testing God. It is about testing nature.