Science is Dead to me

[Fervent]

Agreed. (Except for that little 'ding' at the end about engaging with PhD level theorists). On this last point, I'm just going to posit that what I "mean" by such engagement may be a little different that what you have in mind. But whatever the case may be...... my wife is telling me it's time to eat! So, it's been good talking to you, Fervent!

Stay Fervent!

Hey thanks for the convo, I didn't mean the thing at the end to be a "ding" though I suppose I did presume how you engage with PhD level theorists.

You're a good dude, 2PhiloVoid.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's not so much that people make direct appeals to common sense, but that there is a false sense of what is known as "common sense realism" or naive realism that science reinforces.

That's really pragmatism. "It works as though it were true whenever we test it, so it's reasonable to treat it as such."
Pierce and James, you know.

This isn't an issue of selecting naturalistic theories through the scientific method, but a question of the reliability of inference to the best explanation which is built on a common sense understanding of the world.

Science won out because it worked better than anything else WRT to the physical universe. People notice that kind of thing.

It's not a matter of causes, but the existence of God. Ultimately, as far as causes goes it is either the case that contingent causes extend into infinity or there is a necessary cause at the root of all causes. If it is the former, God's existence is an impossibility. If it is the latter, God's existence is then a necessary fact. If He exists, He exists because His existence demands His existence and there is no possible way for Him to not exist.

Seems like a lot of words to say "God exists or He doesn't exist."

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.

So no one can learn anything if they don't fear God? I don't think that's what the proverb means. You missed the 2nd half of the verse: "But fools despise wisdom and instruction."

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is an established fact, by any reasonable standard. The longer the church remains in denial over this, the more out of touch with reality it will seem.

The Church doesn't deny this fact. The great majority of the world's Christians belong to denominations that accept evolution as consistent with Christian belief.

 

[The Barbarian]

Individualist or cumulative, science presumes that we can begin with nothing and end up at the truth.

Nope. There is one underlying assumption of science:
"The rules by which the physical universe works have been the same since the beginning.

That's all it takes.

And that's consistent with a loving and truthful Creator Who made the world so man could live in it. IDers call it "front loading." I just think it's creation.

"Thinking themselves wise, they become as fools."

Funny how people never realize to whom that verse applies.

 

[Fervent]

That's really pragmatism. "It works as though it were true whenever we test it, so it's reasonable to treat it as such."
Pierce and James, you know.

Sort of.

Science won out because it worked better than anything else WRT to the physical universe. People notice that kind of thing.

I'm not sure what you think science "won out" against, exactly. Or what that has to do with the legitimacy of abductive reasoning.

Seems like a lot of words to say "God exists or He doesn't exist."

Sort of, but it comes down to possibility. If it is even slightly possible for a God that has the property of aseity to exist, then there is no possible way for that God to not exist. So our epistemic options are either assent to such a God and find the best match, or to interpret the world such that that God's existence is impossible. Agnosticism is an epistemic comment, but aseity makes such a position functionally impossible.

So no one can learn anything if they don't fear God? I don't think that's what the proverb means. You missed the 2nd half of the verse: "But fools despise wisdom and instruction."

I didn't miss the second half, because it is in light of the first have that we have to interpret "wisdom and instruction." Those who don't fear God lack a true foundation so what they have is a false knowledge. And it contains an implicit ontology, either an entity-realism or a law-realism of some sort.

Nope. There is one underlying assumption of science:
"The rules by which the physical universe works have been the same since the beginning.

And that assumption destroys the possibility of discovering a miracle-making interventionist God, because a miracle making God interventionist God can and does alter the rules on His "whim".

That's all it takes.

And that's enough to eliminate God as presented in the Bible as a possibility. There are a limited number of possible gods that can be accomodated, but a personal God isn't one of them.

And that's consistent with a loving and truthful Creator Who made the world so man could live in it. IDers call it "front loading." I just think it's creation.

That sounds like a deistic theology.

Funny how people never realize to whom that verse applies.

Are you implying it doesn't apply to people who become intelligent in their own estimation, and in doing so contend agaisnt what an omniscient being has said?

 

[The Barbarian]

That's really pragmatism. "It works as though it were true whenever we test it, so it's reasonable to treat it as such."
Pierce and James, you know.

Sort of.

pragmatism /prăg′mə-tĭz″əm/

noun​

1. A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
2. A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.
3. Pragmatical character or conduct; officiousness; busy impertinence.

Science won out because it worked better than anything else WRT to the physical universe. People notice that kind of thing.

I'm not sure what you think science "won out" against, exactly.

Demons as sources of disease. Lightning bolts as God trying to hit people He found sinful. Epidemics as caused by foul smells. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions caused by sinful towns. That kind of thing.

Or what that has to do with the legitimacy of abductive reasoning.

William of Occam sliced through that issue a long time ago. In science, it's usually the observation that an ugly theory is likely to be wrong in some way or another.

It's not a matter of causes, but the existence of God. Ultimately, as far as causes goes it is either the case that contingent causes extend into infinity or there is a necessary cause at the root of all causes. If it is the former, God's existence is an impossibility. If it is the latter, God's existence is then a necessary fact. If He exists, He exists because His existence demands His existence and there is no possible way for Him to not exist.

Seems like a lot of words to say "God exists or He doesn't exist."

Sort of,

Agnosticism is an epistemic comment, but aseity makes such a position functionally impossible.

So what if someone doesn't know what "aseity" is? Would he then not know that it's impossible to not know? Does two "I dunno:" make a "know?"

Those who don't fear God lack a true foundation so what they have is a false knowledge.

So, (for example) when Roman engineers were building the Parthenon, they didn't really know that the formulation of concrete they used, included a self-healing component? You sure about that?

Nope. There is one underlying assumption of science:
"The rules by which the physical universe works have been the same since the beginning."

And that assumption destroys the possibility of discovering a miracle-making interventionist God,

No, it means that science can't discover such a God. But scientists can. Think about it. "Science is a method, not a worldview."

And that's consistent with a loving and truthful Creator Who made the world so man could live in it. IDers call it "front loading." I just think it's creation.

That sounds like a deistic theology.

Sounds like the theology of a theist whose God is great enough to make a world that works without Him having to tinker with it.

Are you implying it doesn't apply to people who become intelligent in their own estimation

I'm suggesting that everyone should consider that verse. It's meant to be an aid to self-help, not a rhetorical weapon.

 

[Fervent]

That's really pragmatism. "It works as though it were true whenever we test it, so it's reasonable to treat it as such."
Pierce and James, you know.

pragmatism /prăg′mə-tĭz″əm/

noun​

1. A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
2. A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.
3. Pragmatical character or conduct; officiousness; busy impertinence.

Common sense realism/naive realism is related to pragmatism, but pragmatism adds to it. Common sense realism tries to assert that rocks are just rocks and trees are just trees is a sufficient level of specificity of ontology. Pragmatism extends common sense realism to a higher degree, so yeah they're related but they're not identical.

Science won out because it worked better than anything else WRT to the physical universe. People notice that kind of thing.


Demons as sources of disease. Lightning bolts as God trying to hit people He found sinful. Epidemics as caused by foul smells. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions caused by sinful towns. That kind of thing.

With the exception of demons, that's just bad science that better science won out from. Which is a whole different kettle of fish.

William of Occam sliced through that issue a long time ago. In science, it's usually the observation that an ugly theory is likely to be wrong in some way or another.

Common misconception, but that's untrue. Occam's razor, while producing elegant theories, works as a heuristic not because there is some inherent truth value to simpler theories, but because by not unnecessarily extending a theory it becomes possible to develop a singular focus on a limited set of elements. Elegant theories are easier to work with, and when they don't work they are easier to identify the point of failure and replace it. Which is why the common phrasing of it leads to fallacious reasoning, and it's original formulation is "do not multiply entities unnecessarily." Occam's razor is not an inherent property of the universe, it simply creates favorable conditions for conducting research.

Seems like a lot of words to say "God exists or He doesn't exist."



So what if someone doesn't know what "aseity" is? Would he then not know that it's impossible to not know? Does two "I dunno:" make a "know?"

The issue doesn't rest in the person's knowledge or lack of knowledge in aseity, per se, but in what aseity implies about ontology. A God with the property of aseity is the ontological ground, and while science no longer explicitly looks into ontologies its naturalistic bent implicitly carries a naturalistic ontology. So for a God to have both aseity and fit with a naturalistic ontology it must be a naturalistic god, e.g. a deistic or pantheistic(or possibly impersonal panentheistic) god. A panentheistic personal God with aseity which roughly characterizes the God of the Bible, though, is impossible under a naturalistic ontology. So while it's possible to be agnostic about a god compatible with naturalism and embrace naturalism, it is not possible to be agnostic about a God incompatible with naturalism and embrace naturalism. As our choices are essentially binary regarding a panentheistic god with aseity, to be agnostic about such a God is either to be without an ontological ground(so no naturalism, which gives no basis for science's trustworthiness) or to treat such a God as impossible a priori.

So, (for example) when Roman engineers were building the Parthenon, they didn't really know that the formulation of concrete they used, included a self-healing component? You sure about that?

This gets into questions about what the conditions for something to be considered "knowledge" that I'd rather not get into here.

Nope. There is one underlying assumption of science:
"The rules by which the physical universe works have been the same since the beginning."


No, it means that science can't discover such a God. But scientists can. Think about it. "Science is a method, not a worldview."

We're discussing how science is interpreted, the line between method and worldview is often far more blurred in practice than in theory.

And that's consistent with a loving and truthful Creator Who made the world so man could live in it. IDers call it "front loading." I just think it's creation.


Sounds like the theology of a theist whose God is great enough to make a world that works without Him having to tinker with it.

Except God "tinkering" with creation is pretty much the entire story of the Bible. So there's at least a tension between such an assumption and taking the Bible seriously, if not a complete incompatibility.

I'm suggesting that everyone should consider that verse. It's meant to be an aid to self-help, not a rhetorical weapon.

I agree with you there, to an extent. But as Paul was a master rhetorician I don't think using it rhetorically is out of character with the text.

 

[The Barbarian]

The issue doesn't rest in the person's knowledge or lack of knowledge in aseity, per se, but in what aseity implies about ontology. A God with the property of aseity is the ontological ground, and while science no longer explicitly looks into ontologies its naturalistic bent implicitly carries a naturalistic ontology. So for a God to have both aseity and fit with a naturalistic ontology it must be a naturalistic god, e.g. a deistic or pantheistic(or possibly impersonal panentheistic) god. A panentheistic personal God with aseity which roughly characterizes the God of the Bible, though, is impossible under a naturalistic ontology. So while it's possible to be agnostic about a god compatible with naturalism and embrace naturalism, it is not possible to be agnostic about a God incompatible with naturalism and embrace naturalism. As our choices are essentially binary regarding a panentheistic god with aseity, to be agnostic about such a God is either to be without an ontological ground(so no naturalism, which gives no basis for science's trustworthiness) or to treat such a God as impossible a priori.

In biology, we say that if you can't say it simply, then you don't really understand it.

With the exception of demons, that's just bad science that better science won out from. Which is a whole different kettle of fish.

Hint: it's a faulty religious belief that lightning is God tossing bolts at people He want to punish. Not bad science.

So, (for example) when Roman engineers were building the Pantheon, they didn't really know that the formulation of concrete they used, included a self-healing component? You sure about that?

This gets into questions about what the conditions for something to be considered "knowledge" that I'd rather not get into here.

So the dumb engineers, not realizing that they can't know how to formulate self-healing concrete went ahead and did it anyway?

And that assumption destroys the possibility of discovering a miracle-making interventionist God, because a miracle making God interventionist God can and does alter the rules on His "whim".

No, it means that science can't discover such a God. But scientists can. Think about it. "Science is a method, not a worldview."

We're discussing how science is interpreted, the line between method and worldview is often far more blurred in practice than in theory.

I'm showing you that scientists are not limited by the methodology of science. They can use other methods as well. Hence the point that there are things science can't do, that scientists can do. Think about it.

Except God "tinkering" with creation is pretty much the entire story of the Bible.

That is based on the error in thinking that God does miracles because He has to. God does miracles in order to teach us something, not because He has to.

 

[Fervent]

In biology, we say that if you can't say it simply, then you don't really understand it.

A common adage, in this case it's not an inability to say it simply but that there are a lot of moving parts and argumentation needed. Simply put, it boils down to no neutral position between a Biblically-accurate theology and a naturalistic ontology.

Hint: it's a faulty religious belief that lightning is God tossing bolts at people He want to punish. Not bad science.

Depends precisely what we mean by "science." If we mean a particular methodical approach to learning, fair enough. But if we mean general theory-building regarding causes, it's bad science of a religious kind.

So, (for example) when Roman engineers were building the Parthenon, they didn't really know that the formulation of concrete they used, included a self-healing component? You sure about that?

So the dumb engineers, not realizing that they can't know how to formulate self-healing concrete went ahead and did it anyway?

Again, we're getting into questions about what constitutes "knowledge" that I have no interest in exploring in this discussion. It's off-track.

No, it means that science can't discover such a God. But scientists can. Think about it. "Science is a method, not a worldview."

I'm showing you that scientists are not limited by the methodology of science. They can use other methods as well. Hence the point that there are things science can't do, that scientists can do. Think about it.

I'm not sure why you're not understanding that I'm not concerned with what scientists can and do believe or have any issues with a methodical, bottom-up approach to research. My concern is entirely one of how science is to be interpreted, what exactly it is that science provides us with.

That is based on the error in thinking that God does miracles because He has to. God does miracles in order to teach us something, not because He has to.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this, but God's motivations for doing miracles has little bearing on the functionality of it all. If we take the Bible at all seriously, we have to examine miracles such as making the sun stand still for 24 hours or other miracles that completely suspended the ordinary processes of the universe. I brought up Hume's fork earlier because it reveals the underlying error that reinforces belief in science, in that inductive reasoning is taken as sufficient for theory building when in reality no amount of observational support would be sufficient to make an absolute claim such as that the rules that operate in the universe have always been the same. So while we can develop phenomenological laws that have predictive fitness, we cannot presume that predictive fitness necessarily refers to a real property of the universe.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this, but God's motivations for doing miracles has little bearing on the functionality of it all. If we take the Bible at all seriously, we have to examine miracles such as making the sun stand still for 24 hours or other miracles that completely suspended the ordinary processes of the universe.

This merely assumes that accounts that could be figurative are literal histories. God could do such a thing, of course, but it seems a bit excessive to suspend some operations of the entire universe to make a local battle turn out right. In fact, evidence shows that something remarkable did happen that day..

‘Joshua stopped the sun’ 3,224 years ago today, scientists say​

“Modern English translations, which follow the King James translation of 1611, usually interpret this text to mean that the sun and moon stopped moving,” Humphreys explained. “But going back to the original Hebrew text, we determined that an alternative meaning could be that the sun and moon just stopped doing what they normally do: they stopped shining.”

Humphreys said that if the biblical account means that the light from the sun appeared to stop shining, it may refer to an eclipse.

“This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word translated ‘stand still’ has the same root as a Babylonian word used in ancient astronomical texts to describe eclipses,” he said.
...
Their new research found, however, that an annular eclipse, “in which the moon passes directly in front of the sun, but is too far away to cover the disc completely, leading to the characteristic ‘ring of fire’ appearance,” occurred on October 30, 1207 BCE.

The researchers note that the ancient world did not distinguish linguistically between total and annular eclipses.

“The researchers developed a new eclipse code, which takes into account variations in the Earth’s rotation over time,” Cambridge University said in its statement. “From their calculations, they determined that the only annular eclipse visible from Canaan between 1500 and 1050 BC was on 30 October 1207 BC, in the afternoon.”

“Independent evidence that the Israelites were in Canaan between 1500 and 1050 BC can be found in the Merneptah Stele,” the Cambridge University statement said.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/3224-years-later-scientists-see-first-ever-recorded-eclipse-in-joshuas-battle/

 

[The Barbarian]

I brought up Hume's fork earlier because it reveals the underlying error that reinforces belief in science, in that inductive reasoning is taken as sufficient for theory building when in reality no amount of observational support would be sufficient to make an absolute claim such as that the rules that operate in the universe have always been the same.

Hence my point that it's the assumption on which science is based. However, that assumption has always held so far. Which is why we can (for example) confidently say that the Earth will continue rotating as it has, subject to various effects like the recession of the moon. As Hoffstader notes, truth is a stronger thing than provability.

It is precisely because the rules have always been the same, that we can investigate and determine what happened on the day that the Lord delivered the Amorites to the children of Israel.

 

[Fervent]

Hence my point that it's the assumption on which science is based. However, that assumption has always held so far. Which is why we can (for example) confidently say that the Earth will continue rotating as it has, subject to various effects like the recession of the moon. As Hoffstader notes, truth is a stronger thing than provability.

It is precisely because the rules have always been the same, that we can investigate and determine what happened on the day that the Lord delivered the Amorites to the children of Israel.

How would such an assumption be falsified? And what does it mean that it "has held" when we've had to give up long-standing rules that were thought fundamental like the distributive law in order to preserve the assumption?

 

[Fervent]

This merely assumes that accounts that could be figurative are literal histories. God could do such a thing, of course, but it seems a bit excessive to suspend some operations of the entire universe to make a local battle turn out right. In fact, evidence shows that something remarkable did happen that day..

‘Joshua stopped the sun’ 3,224 years ago today, scientists say​

“Modern English translations, which follow the King James translation of 1611, usually interpret this text to mean that the sun and moon stopped moving,” Humphreys explained. “But going back to the original Hebrew text, we determined that an alternative meaning could be that the sun and moon just stopped doing what they normally do: they stopped shining.”

Humphreys said that if the biblical account means that the light from the sun appeared to stop shining, it may refer to an eclipse.

“This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word translated ‘stand still’ has the same root as a Babylonian word used in ancient astronomical texts to describe eclipses,” he said.
...
Their new research found, however, that an annular eclipse, “in which the moon passes directly in front of the sun, but is too far away to cover the disc completely, leading to the characteristic ‘ring of fire’ appearance,” occurred on October 30, 1207 BCE.

The researchers note that the ancient world did not distinguish linguistically between total and annular eclipses.

“The researchers developed a new eclipse code, which takes into account variations in the Earth’s rotation over time,” Cambridge University said in its statement. “From their calculations, they determined that the only annular eclipse visible from Canaan between 1500 and 1050 BC was on 30 October 1207 BC, in the afternoon.”

“Independent evidence that the Israelites were in Canaan between 1500 and 1050 BC can be found in the Merneptah Stele,” the Cambridge University statement said.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/3224-years-later-scientists-see-first-ever-recorded-eclipse-in-joshuas-battle/

This seems rather eisegetical, selecting a meaning to make the text fit with a view of nature that puts natural laws as inviolable. I imagine you'd endorse a similar move for other miracles like the parting of the sea, the sun moving backwards for Hezekiah, Christ walking on water, and other places where the "rules" of nature are suspended by God's intervention in nature.

 

[The Barbarian]

How would such an assumption be falsified?

By finding an example of where it doesn't work.

And what does it mean that it "has held"

So far, it's always worked.

when we've had to give up long-standing rules that were thought fundamental like the distributive law in order to preserve the assumption?

Mathematics is a human construct. But far as I know, the distributive law has always been known to not apply to (for example) division. You might point to phlogiston as an example, but the thing is, the theory of phlogiston always worked. It's just that when the chemistry of combustion was better understood, oxidation was a more accurate description of what atoms and energy were doing. It's like the thinking of one primitive tribe that lived along a mountainous coast. They believed that evil spirits interfered with boiling food. And they noticed that the concentration of evil spirits increased with altitude. We would say that since water boils at a lower temperature at low pressure, food takes longer to boil at high altitudes. The point is that their theory worked just as well as ours. Didn't change over time. The same rules persisted. Hence the tribe subscribed to uniformitarianism just as we do.

 

[The Barbarian]

(turns out, a solar eclipse happened at the time of Joshua's battle where the sun stood still)

Humphreys said that if the biblical account means that the light from the sun appeared to stop shining, it may refer to an eclipse.

“This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word translated ‘stand still’ has the same root as a Babylonian word used in ancient astronomical texts to describe eclipses,” he said.

This seems rather eisegetical, selecting a meaning to make the text fit with a view of nature that puts natural laws as inviolable.

It would be a rather surprising coincidence if this "stand still" which people in the area used to describe eclipses, did not refer to the eclipse that happened at that time. The eisegisis would seem to be a denial of the facts, to preserve a belief in a special miracle. To what end?

I imagine you'd endorse a similar move for other miracles like the parting of the sea, the sun moving backwards for Hezekiah, Christ walking on water, and other places where the "rules" of nature are suspended by God's intervention in nature.

Depends on the context, doesn't it? Remember, creation is a miracle. Again, God intervenes not out of a need to do so, but to teach us. Hence it wouldn't be surprising if He had the eclipse in mind just for Joshua and his battle.

 

[Fervent]

By finding an example of where it doesn't work.

How would that be accomplished through a process that assumes it to be true and adjust theories to preserve it when the current ones fail?

So far, it's always worked.

So everytime someone has used science to make a prediction they've been right?

Mathematics is a human construct. But far as I know, the distributive law has always been known to not apply to (for example) division. You might point to phlogiston as an example, but the thing is, the theory of phlogiston always worked. It's just that when the chemistry of combustion was better understood, oxidation was a more accurate description of what atoms and energy were doing. It's like the thinking of one primitive tribe that lived along a mountainous coast. They believed that evil spirits interfered with boiling food. And they noticed that the concentration of evil spirits increased with altitude. We would say that since water boils at a lower temperature at low pressure, food takes longer to boil at high altitudes. The point is that their theory worked just as well as ours. Didn't change over time. The same rules persisted. Hence the tribe subscribed to uniformitarianism just as we do.

Mathematics is a symbolic language, the ability to construct languages to describe phenomena doesn't address the reference issue. The success of languages can be explained in terms of the languages themselves, which allows for us to be agnostic about the reference question.

 

[Fervent]

(turns out, a solar eclipse happened at the time of Joshua's battle where the sun stood still)

Humphreys said that if the biblical account means that the light from the sun appeared to stop shining, it may refer to an eclipse.

“This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word translated ‘stand still’ has the same root as a Babylonian word used in ancient astronomical texts to describe eclipses,” he said.

An eclipse happened in the ancient world, but we don't have a precise date for the battle to confirm that the date the eclipse happened and the date of the battle were the same.

It would be a rather surprising coincidence if this "stand still" which people in the area used to describe eclipses, did not refer to the eclipse that happened at that time. The eisegisis would seem to be a denial of the facts, to preserve a belief in a special miracle. To what end?

The particulars of how God accomplished the miracle are a bit of a distraction from the central issue. The text presents God moving nature in such a way as to aid the Israelites in battle. The eclipse hypothesis doesn't really give an explanation for that, because how would an eclipse aid them in battle? The narrative in context seems to imply that the miracle was giving an unnaturally longer period of daylight so that the battle could continue.

Depends on the context, doesn't it? Remember, creation is a miracle. Again, God intervenes not out of a need to do so, but to teach us. Hence it wouldn't be surprising if He had the eclipse in mind just for Joshua and his battle.

Certainly, but regardless of context a miracle is by definition a point in time when the "rules" do not apply. Either as a local or global phenomena. So the assumption that they always have been goes out the window.

 

[The Barbarian]

An eclipse happened in the ancient world, but we don't have a precise date for the battle to confirm that the date the eclipse happened and the date of the battle were the same.

That's the good part of this. The date of the eclipse can be used to confirm other dates, all of which are consistent with Joshua's battle.

The particulars of how God accomplished the miracle are a bit of a distraction from the central issue.

So why would you find it objectionable if God pre-set things to make it work as He intended? Depends on the context, doesn't it? Remember, creation is a miracle. Again, God intervenes not out of a need to do so, but to teach us. Hence it wouldn't be surprising if He had the eclipse in mind just for Joshua and his battle.

Certainly, but regardless of context a miracle is by definition a point in time when the "rules" do not apply.

But it doesn't say that He did it outside the rules. It merely says it happened. And given that creation itself is a miracle why is it less Godlike to have things set work as He wanted?

 

[Fervent]

That's the good part of this. The date of the eclipse can be used to confirm other dates, all of which are consistent with Joshua's battle.

Possibly, though I'm suspicious of such historical reconstructions.

So why would you find it objectionable if God pre-set things to make it work as He intended? Depends on the context, doesn't it? Remember, creation is a miracle. Again, God intervenes not out of a need to do so, but to teach us. Hence it wouldn't be surprising if He had the eclipse in mind just for Joshua and his battle.

My objection isn't necessarily to a pre-ordained universe, though the implications of such on topics like free do cause me to lean against such a construction. My issue is simply which is leading, theology or natural science. You've expressed a theological understanding of the natural sciences, which seems to me you're looking to the natural world to inform you about who God is. I see creation as an icon, and as an icon it is ultimately beyond comprehension. So for me what the Bible says about God is the foundation, and my understanding of the natural sciences flows from there.

But it doesn't say that He did it outside the rules. It merely says it happened. And given that creation itself is a miracle why is it less Godlike to have things set work as He wanted?

Some of the miracles are fundamentally incompatible with the rules as far as we know them, for example multiplying of loaves and conservation of matter/energy. As for your question, it calls for an approach to theology that pioritizes natural theology over revelatory theology. And I should probably make clear I am not denying that the scientific account is the case, simply leaving open that the assumption that science requires to operate may be false and so everything that follows that assumption may be false. I am agnostic about whether the literal Biblical account or the naturalist historical account is the true history, I lean towards scientific but because a literal reading of God's word has real conflicts with the scientific account I leave open the possibility that despite all of our wonderful inferences, we're totally off base with science. Instrumentalism and antirealism give an adequate explanation for the instrumental success of scientific methods, so I see no reason to endorse a scientific realism even if it is the position that has the strongest intuitive appeal for me. The scientific processes explain predictive success, without needing to determine the extent to which the theories are actually true.

 

[johansen]

“This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word translated ‘stand still’ has the same root as a Babylonian word used in ancient astronomical texts to describe eclipses,” he said.

when i first found that out, years ago.. my first concern was "how did a babalonian word end up in the hebrew torah?"
then later i found you're not allowed to ask that question.. and the reality is because the torah was written after babylon. it was all oral tradition before that, and/or in a different language.