Something I need to get off my chest about the whole creation/evolution thing.

Targaryen · Oct 22, 2014

Irreligion is a belief in fact, which science gives them. Doesn't make it much of a philosophy in my view when there is nothing more then surface fact to explore. You just want to make the assumption and a wrong one that the scientific field and religion cannot co-exist. And you haven't proven anything close to it yet.

Jig · Oct 22, 2014

LiberalAnglicanCatholic said:
Irreligion is a belief in fact, which science gives them. Doesn't make it much of a philosophy in my view when there is nothing more then surface fact to explore. You just want to make the assumption and a wrong one that the scientific field and religion cannot co-exist. And you haven't proven anything close to it yet.

My claim has never been that faith and science cannot co-exist. All I am trying to say is that scientific inquire cannot determine if something occurred supernaturally or not. It is limited to only natural explanations.

As such, if something supernatural occurred - such as Jesus turning water into wine - all naturalist-based interpretations would state that this wine had a natural history. Yet, these interpretations of the evidence would be wrong in actuality.

LittleLambofJesus · Oct 22, 2014

Originally Posted by LiberalAnglicanCatholic

Faith and science do not contradict, and Jesus' Resurrection is not the topic.

Jig said:
I'm not talking about "faith and science". I'm talking about "supernatural vs natural".

Something along the lines of "spirit vs flesh/natural", with the Holy Spirit being the supernatural?

These verses come to mind:

NKJV Search Results for "natural"

1Co 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him;
nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1Co 15:
44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.

.

Targaryen · Oct 22, 2014

Jig said:
My claim has never been that faith and science cannot co-exist. All I am trying to say is that scientific inquire cannot determine if something occurred supernaturally or not. It is limited to only natural explanations.

As such, if something supernatural occurred - such as Jesus turning water into wine - all naturalist-based interpretations would state that this wine had a natural history. Yet, these interpretations of the evidence would be wrong in actuality.

How would they be able to prove it didn't turn into wine or did? The wine was consumed most likely during the wedding feast and if not, 2000 = years old wine would've long since evaporated and residue left succumb to entropy and disintegration.

That doesn't support any claim, we have the biblical text, we can believe the text sure. but applying science to it wouldn't be possible unless somehow there was a sample of that wine that was changed at Cana, but as I said there are reasons why it wouldn't exist.

Mama Kidogo · Oct 23, 2014

Jig said:
My claim has never been that faith and science cannot co-exist. All I am trying to say is that scientific inquire cannot determine if something occurred supernaturally or not. It is limited to only natural explanations.

As such, if something supernatural occurred - such as Jesus turning water into wine - all naturalist-based interpretations would state that this wine had a natural history. Yet, these interpretations of the evidence would be wrong in actuality.

Not really. The big bang would be supernatural. Compressing nothing into something and then exploding into everything sure seems supernatural to me.

GratiaCorpusChristi · Oct 23, 2014

Jig said:
Every scientific study performed on dead bodies has concluded that it is impossible to resuscitate someone who has been dead for three days.

It's a good thing I believe Jesus was resurrected supernaturally.
http://www.christianforums.com//uk.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

You're comparing a specific event that breaks the rule to the entire system of interlocking events that is the observable biosphere. Apples and oranges.

If you scientifically examined Jesus' dead body, and then scientifically examined Jesus' risen body, you'd have to conclude that resurrected happened through some mechanism which we have yet to understand. That wouldn't change the fact that in the normal course of events, dead bodies two days in the grave cannot be resuscitated by any known (or even conceivable) medical science.

MKJ · Oct 23, 2014

Jig said:
I'm afraid you do not fully understand what it means to read the Bible literally. No fundamentalist reads the Bible purely "literally". If this was the case, they would have to believe Herod was a fox (Luke 13:32).

What people believe, and what makes sense, aren't always the same.

There are many people who do not realize that there is more than one way to read. They know, of course, that describing someone as a fox is a literary device - they probably don't really even think about it. They know there are different types of writing, fictional stories, or biographies. They probably know that different cultures will have different expressions and literary forms.

But they cannot wrap their heads around as easily is the idea that people's deep values and feelings about what was written were quite different. That people might not care if the details of a biography were perfectly factual, or even feel that it being non-factual on some points might enhance the verity of the account. They see what a metaphor is, but can't really see how it could be more true than "facts". And they especially can't see why God, who they often think pretty much verbatim dictated the Bible, would use anything other than facts.

More generally, I think these, and many other creationsist, are deeply uncomfortable with saying "we don't quite know how our observations in nature fit together with what we know to be spiritually or metaphysically true, but we are sure that the unity of reality is true nonetheless".

MKJ · Oct 23, 2014

I actually think there are a lot of problems using the terms natural and supernatural when it comes to these things. That the two aren't really separate is a fundamental of Christianity. The idea of the supernatural apart from the natural tends to rather assume a kind of dualism, or materialism which denies the supernatural altogether. That is why modern atheist proselytizers like to use that distinction so much - it weighs the argument in their favour.

I think it is better if you have to to talk about the metaphysical and physical - or something comparable.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Oct 23, 2014

Can one scientific discipline be reduced to the terms of the science of philosophy in another? That is the question.

Jig · Oct 23, 2014

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
If you scientifically examined Jesus' dead body, and then scientifically examined Jesus' risen body, you'd have to conclude that resurrected happened through some mechanism which we have yet to understand. That wouldn't change the fact that in the normal course of events, dead bodies two days in the grave cannot be resuscitated by any known (or even conceivable) medical science.

By "some mechanism", do you mean some "natural" mechanism?

ViaCrucis · Oct 23, 2014

Jig said:
By "some mechanism", do you mean some "natural" mechanism?

I think he means unknown mechanism. The mechanism would be undetermined from a scientific perspective; because there is heretofore no known way this could happen.

-CryptoLutheran

Jig · Oct 23, 2014

ViaCrucis said:
I think he means unknown mechanism. The mechanism would be undetermined from a scientific perspective; because there is heretofore no known way this could happen.

-CryptoLutheran

Would it be assumed that this "unknown" mechanism is natural?

ViaCrucis · Oct 23, 2014

Mama Kidogo said:
Not really. The big bang would be supernatural. Compressing nothing into something and then exploding into everything sure seems supernatural to me.

That depends I suppose.

The rapid expansion of space-time from a singularity--the big bang--is generally understood as a pretty natural event. Of course one of the problems we have is that because of how fast this primordial moment went, it's difficult to discern exactly what happened beyond a certain point in time. We can go back pretty far, reading the background radiation of the universe, as a kind of fingerprint of the big bang, but as far as I know that's about as far back as we can get at the moment. We can "see" the young universe, but we can't see its infancy (as it were).

So much of the initial, primordial event is largely conjecture, educated guesses, and speculation. The sudden, rapid expansion of the cosmos out from a singularity fits the general projected mathematical models, but even then the problem is the singularity itself where math itself and all known rules of space-time break down into meaninglessness.

But even assuming a purely naturalistic occurrence, this doesn't negate the divine handiwork of God in the primordial moment of creation. There's no reason why "natural" and "supernatural" need be dichotomised.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Oct 23, 2014

Jig said:
Would it be assumed that this "unknown" mechanism is natural?

In science? Since science is only equipped to deal with natural processes and mechanisms then science can only predict such.

And so, as such, the mechanism would remain unknown--science being ill-equipped to deal with that which is beyond its purview.

And no, that is not analogous to the mechanistic causes of biodiversity as we observe on this planet. Because the mechanisms are not unknown, but known.

-CryptoLutheran

GratiaCorpusChristi · Oct 23, 2014

Jig said:
By "some mechanism", do you mean some "natural" mechanism?

Science looks for natural mechanisms, but where it can't find any, it leaves open the possibility of the supernatural. Science cannot conclude that a supernatural event occurred, because that would not be a scientific but a theological judgment (methodological naturalism), but it cannot categorically affirm that all possible causes are natural, because that would not be a scientific but a philosophical judgment (metaphysical naturalism). Science must always search for, and can only find, natural causes, and can neither theologically affirm nor philosophically deny supernatural causes.

More generally, though, I'm with MJK: The natural/supernatural divide, while an important distinction, is largely foreign to the biblical worldview.

PaladinValer · Oct 23, 2014

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
Science looks for natural mechanisms, but where it can't find any, it leaves open the possibility of the supernatural.

...and even when it can, it still won't say whether or not anything supernatural was behind it because it has no authority on that issue.

That's why theistic evolution is really the best Christian expression on the issue: it acknowledges God's hand in creation and that He indeed CREATED while accepting the proven evidence of evolution and basically saying: "well, of course God created: here's how, and we're learning more every day".

Jig · Oct 23, 2014

ViaCrucis said:
In science? Since science is only equipped to deal with natural processes and mechanisms then science can only predict such.

And so, as such, the mechanism would remain unknown--science being ill-equipped to deal with that which is beyond its purview.

And no, that is not analogous to the mechanistic causes of biodiversity as we observe on this planet. Because the mechanisms are not unknown, but known.

-CryptoLutheran

And this is exactly what I've been trying to get at. Science will always assume a natural process occurred...even if a supernatural process occurred.

Targaryen · Oct 23, 2014

Jig said:
And this is exactly what I've been trying to get at. Science will always assume a natural process occurred...even if a supernatural process occurred.

Still haven't gotten to that point at all. Considering that your points have been refuted rather en masse.

You still misunderstand the way science works as opposed to theological insight.

Really going around in circles in order to prove something, that has already been disproven.

ViaCrucis · Oct 23, 2014

Jig said:
And this is exactly what I've been trying to get at. Science will always assume a natural process occurred...even if a supernatural process occurred.

Let's try something shall we?

Procreation, a natural or supernatural process?

If a natural process, is God therefore alien from the process, thus eliminating the supernatural?

If a supernatural process, can science therefore not describe how procreation works?

-CryptoLutheran

PaladinValer · Oct 23, 2014

Gnostic/Manichean dualism rears its ugly head again...

Something I need to get off my chest about the whole creation/evolution thing.

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

Christ Follower

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

Τίποτα νέο μυθιστόρημα τίποτα

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Christ Follower

Confessional Lutheran

Christ Follower

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Christ Follower

Scripture,Tradition and Reason

Confessional Lutheran

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency