the Great Divide

[rmwilliamsll]

Originally Posted by vossler
I hope so but the appearance is that science governs how you see Scripture and God.

I needed to come up with some ways to explain this relationship of science and theology for a little talk i gave last night.

i like the final wording.
Somepeople have science trumping theology when they talk about the same thing. When science and theology clash, how can they interact?
i'd propose that TE use science to inform and complement their interpretation of Scripture. I know i am wrong at significant places in what i believe, both about the world and about Scripture. The problem is that i don't know where these errors are. Allowing my interpretation of Scripture to interact with my understanding of the world allows both to learn from the other, allows my vision of both to be broadened by information from the other. It is not that science overwhelms or governs my interpretation of Scripture, it is that it talks to, it helps the places where my modern ideas and the ancient ideas of Scripture clash.
i see this as a great strength, not an issue of allowing science to govern but allowing science to interact with my interpretational mechanisms.

 

[vossler]

Somepeople have science trumping theology when they talk about the same thing. When science and theology clash, how can they interact?
i'd propose that TE use science to inform and complement their interpretation of Scripture. I know i am wrong at significant places in what i believe, both about the world and about Scripture. The problem is that i don't know where these errors are. Allowing my interpretation of Scripture to interact with my understanding of the world allows both to learn from the other, allows my vision of both to be broadened by information from the other. It is not that science overwhelms or governs my interpretation of Scripture, it is that it talks to, it helps the places where my modern ideas and the ancient ideas of Scripture clash.
i see this as a great strength, not an issue of allowing science to govern but allowing science to interact with my interpretational mechanisms.

This just solidifies the divide even more. I've stated my piece and view. I'll leave you with this last word and let others, if they so choose, to comment further.

 

[vossler]

That's what happens when you don't go back far enough and realize you've left some unattended business. Ooops!

Is such a view not scriptural? Romans 1:20, after all.

Let's look at Romans 1:20

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
​

Are you saying that allowing science to govern how we see God and Scripture is supported by this verse?

I'll hold you to it.

That should be easy because I can't ever recall arguing from the modern science perspective that allows unobservable and speculative evidence as a primary leg of support for my position. BTW, that isn't exclusive to evolutionists, AiG and others unfortunately, at times, do the same.

God bless, vossler. I do admire your unmoving faith.

May God bless you too as you seek to know Him and His ways. If we wish to know, seek, ask and knock are what He asks of us. May we always be seekers of His truth and not allow our fleshly, worldly desires interfere with His message.

 

[shernren]

Here's a mischievously crass analogy to describe the relationship between Scripture and science.

To the scientific creationist, science is like a woman who married Scripture, a man. After moving in to stay, she discovered that her husband knew absolutely everything there was to know about anything, and whenever she said something that he didn't agree with she found herself proved wrong time and time again. So after a while she shut up and never said a word against him for the rest of her life and they lived happily ever after.

To the militant atheist, science is like a woman who married Scripture, a man. Before she knew him very well she thought he was the perfect man: but after many years of careful study she discovered that he was nothing but an unemployed alcoholic. She studied diligently for many years on her own and eventually put together enough money to hire a lawyer (behind her husband's back), whereupon she divorced him and in the ensuing legal tussle won the house, the car, the cash, and even the family name. With the money she'd gained that way she wiped out all the other unemployed alcoholics who called themselves religions, and the whole world lived happily ever after.

What these two stories have in common is that they assume that science and Scripture got married. They assume that science and Scripture live in the same house, speak the same language, and have the same interests. The creationists assume that Scripture is so always right that science hasn't a new word left to say; the atheists assume that Scripture is so often wrong that science has altogether evicted him from the premises. One sounds comfortably moral and traditional, the other sounds fresh and liberating, but they both begin with an ominous wedding and end with an oppressed partner.

I submit that the TE view is rather different: to the TE, science and Scripture are like horses and parakeets. Horses and parakeets don't get married. Oh, you might find them in the same house once in a while; but a horse and a parakeet in the same house haven't come together because they have any interest in each other or because they understand each other, but simply because the same owner has bought them both.

Horses neigh and parakeets babble. But even supposing that they could talk, what would they talk about? Can a parakeet tell a horse how to run, or a horse tell a parakeet how to fly? Will the horse steal birdseed from the feeder, or will the parakeet complain that it wants some hay and rolled oats for itself? Oh, they might have occasion to work together, and they might even enjoy gossiping about the owner. But imagine if the parakeet felt threatened because the horse knew more about wings and feathers than it did: that would be a strange parakeet, and an even stranger horse! Horses and parakeets can't replace each other, so they have nothing to fight over, even if they live in the same house with the same owner.

So it is with science and Scripture: even to whatever extent they inform each other, they live in the same house only because they have the same owner. Science can't tell Scripture how to be Scriptural, and Scripture can't tell science how to be scientific, because they speak of different things in different languages. For one to feel threatened by the other is strange and sad.

 

[Xaero]

Let's look at Romans 1:20

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Are you saying that allowing science to govern how we see God and Scripture is supported by this verse?

Rom1:20 says God's nature is clearly seen in his creation. So when scripture directs us to the physical world - why should we ignore this?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

from the same thread that i started this thread with

I'll leave you with the last word because this will be my final post in this thread. Before I go I'll give you with this final observation. If you truly, in your heart of hearts, believe that TEs over in C&E are loving and respectful to their YEC brethren there, then sadly I would say we have little to nothing in common. Our worldviews would be so far apart that to claim otherwise would be patently ridiculous. If so, the state of affairs here is far worse than I ever imagined and that is far more tragic than being right or wrong about evolution

and i will repeat the point of the OP.
the great divide between people is between supernaturalists and naturalists. it is not between YEC and OEC. however as YECism gets older and more insulated from the real world, this viewpoint expressed above, that YEC alone is the true Christianity is seen more and more, not just here on CF but in the churches. It is apparently the fundamentalist-liberal split of the early 20thC being replayed only on a much smaller ground. For that earlier split often tried to be along the more meaningful supernaturalist vs naturalist lines, usually being determined by the possibility of miracles.

apparently we are going to have church signs:
First Southern Baptist Young Earth Christian Church in the near future, with a deacon at the door checking that everyone adheres to the right age of the earth before being allowed to sit in the pews.
and it will not be OEC that bring up the issue and pursue it, for uniformally it is the YEC that make and sustain it as an issue. sad, for the real battle of our generation, that of: does methodological naturalism imply philosophic naturalism is going unanswered as so many Christians are involved in this internal battle rather than what is a crucial external battle for the minds of the next generation and the unbelieving world.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Let's look at Romans 1:20

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Are you saying that allowing science to govern how we see God and Scripture is supported by this verse?

Rom1:20 says God's nature is clearly seen in his creation. So when scripture directs us to the physical world - why should we ignore this?

This is a good and important question. I think that the answer begins by looking at what is clearly seen. Not all of God's attributes are in creation, not all that are there are visible. Even those that are visible to all people are not discussable with all people because some people suppress this knowledge. So exactly how can we discuss, even these two attributes listed: divine nature and eternal power, with anyone that we chance across?

The problem is that this knowledge is not knowledge of the physical sphere as much as it is knowledge of the relationship of the physical to God. Now i understand that God created everything, that He himself is uncreated, but i don't see why i have to use that information in doing science. Science doesn't talk about the supernatural, mostly because it has been shown that we don't know how to talk about the supernatural and how it interacts with the natural in a consistent and repeatable way. Miracles as well as magic appear to be irreproducible and very observer dependent. This doesn't go very well with science which looks at repeatable and relatively observer independent things.