The Spheres of Science and Religion

[Willtor]

I'd like to address something of science and religion, as I understand them, and their treatment on these forums. I don't want to address this exclusively to one group, but I'd like it to be something of a general statement of my views on the matter.

Religion:

It should be apparent to the most casual reader of Genesis that religion is manmade. Whatever we do to interpret the text, we will almost certainly decide that religion is a human product of the fall. That is not to say that it is wholly bad. God uses it and molds it into the Hebrew nation and culture. But in this molding, one can identify tendencies in religion that are excluded. Foremost of these is the tendency to turn religion into a static worship. The truth is alive and moving. A deeper understanding of the truth is quite contrary to a firmer conviction of a set of rules or principles.

Let me illustrate: The Law of Moses was set down only reluctantly. As circumstances arose, new laws came into effect (just read Leviticus). A static Law is not indicative of the truth that is and is in Jesus Christ. The Law points its way to Christ only insofar as it is treated as the commandment of God (in a particular historical and social context) to observe grace (universally). This only refutes the Law in the static sense. Conversely, the truth of grace in Christ reveals the purpose of the Law. That is, analysis of the Law in that context yields a greater apprehension of God, Himself. In this sense, it is no longer a code at all.

However, it is the tendency of men to try to codify things perceived as truth as soon as they are identified as such. This is the religious tendency that we must fight. We have an obligation to come to a more accurate and more precise understanding of God, as He reveals Himself to us. If we do otherwise, we are fighting Him. The Christian must constantly be re-approaching the object of his faith.

Science:

In religion, for our apprehension of God to grow, it is necessary to place our work in the context of those who endeavor to know God through His divine evidences (revelation). This is the Church. In science, for our apprehension of nature to grow, it is necessary to place our work in the context of those who endeavor to know nature through natural evidences (observation). This is the scientific community. The theologian and the scientist both use their natural abilities of reason to come to a greater apprehension of those things which they behold. Although our ability to reason is fallen, the community context helps to ensure both honesty and integrity.

Needless to say, when we study God, we do so expecting to learn the particulars of the reality of God. It would be very strange, indeed, to learn particulars of the reality of nature (besides that which cannot be learned through observation). When we study nature, we do so expecting to learn the particulars of the reality of nature. It would be very strange, indeed, to learn the particulars of the reality of God.

Paradox:

To be sure, the glory of God is found in nature. But is God, Himself, found in nature? If we uncover the truth of God in nature, we are saying that His revelation has a built-in life-span. God's revelation is only necessary until such time as humanity uncovers God, itself, by its own means. Ironically, if we say that God has revealed something of nature, that we could uncover ourselves, then we are saying the same thing. At least part of God's revelation has a life-span. It becomes superfluous.

I am not interested in criticizing any YEC or Gap-ist. But any position that argues that observations of nature reveal God, and any position that argues that revelation of God reveals nature, is fundamentally incompatible with the God of revelation, as we know Him. It is quite surprising (to me) that the passages of Genesis that ought to indicate that the world persists on the Word of God (entailing that what is observed to be, actually is) have been used to argue quite the opposite.

Synthesis:

We know that the world persists on the Word of God. When we say that nature declares the glory of God, I think that we are indicating a divine mandate to explore nature. When nature appears to say something about God (as He is, in Himself), we must remind ourselves not to make that inference, lest we become idolaters. When God appears to say something about nature (that contradicts observation), we must remind ourselves not to make that inference, lest we conclude that what appears to be, is not.

On any point, we may be mistaken, or we may have misunderstood. The simple solution is that we don't "go with our guts" and codify our conclusions. This would be the religious thing to do (in the fallen sense of religion). The trouble is not that we can make mistakes, but that we don't actively work in community for the sake of honesty and integrity.

 

[Willtor]

Am I off my nut? What's with the silence?

 

[ebia]

The OP is too long for most people to bother reading it.

 

[Willtor]

Here's the short version:

If Creationism were a scientific conclusion, it would mean that God intended for some of His revelation to become unnecessary and irrelevant at some point in time (specifically, the 19th century and after).

 

[Pats]

The OP is too long for most people to bother reading it.

I was reading it while you posting that.

Here's the short version:

If Creationism were a scientific conclusion, it would mean that God intended for some of His revelation to become unnecessary and irrelevant at some point in time (specifically, the 19th century and after).

I didn't get that out of the OP...

I want to ponder a while before commenting further. Maybe you're not getting a lot of comments because no one has decided to vehemently disagree with you yet.

 

[gluadys]

Bravo!


You must spread some Reputation around before giving
it to Willtor again.

 

[vossler]

The OP is too long for most people to bother reading it.

Yeah, three days later and I'm finally finished...I think, I'm not sure, what day is this?

 

[shernren]

To read the OP one needs to think. In short supply here, such people are.

 

[vossler]

To read the OP one needs to think. In short supply here, such people are.

Since it is known that thinking people are in such short supply why post something that requires it, then comment on the lack of results.

Then again, for those who proclaim themselves thinkers what better way to stroke one's own ego.

 

[Willtor]

(boldface mine)

. . .

I didn't get that (the summary) out of the OP...

I want to ponder a while before commenting further. Maybe you're not getting a lot of comments because no one has decided to vehemently disagree with you yet.

The gist is that I see a contradiction between exploring the process of six day creation, scientifically, and the nature of God as He reveals Himself. If science (human oberservation coupled with reason) were able to uncover the Genesis creation account, then the culmination of this science would negate the need for the Genesis creation account as it appears in Scripture. After all, the creation account is so general and says so little about the particulars, and science could continue to make observations until Christ returns (and possibly after, depending upon your endtimes views). The scientific account of creation would be "better than" the Genesis account. This must be true if only because there are only a couple of chapters of Genesis devoted to the subject, and scientists could write whole textbooks.

Ergo, the passages in question have become irrelevant in the last few years. This conclusion would be difficult for me to accept, but I think I could do it. It is the other side of the coin that is contrary to my faith.

If we observe something that is contrary to our interpretation of the Scriptures (observing evolution, for example), then it is impossible to write it off as, "the wisdom of men." After all, we have caused a contradiction within our own perspectives. On the one hand, we believe in one God Who reveals Himself through His Word. The whole world persists on God's Word. It is this (in some measure) that allowed science (observation and reason) to arise in the first place. Because we know God's Word (esp. revealed in the person of Jesus Christ), we have reason to believe that what we observe to be corresponds to what actually is. If we find trees with rings that lead us back, past 10,000 years, those trees are actually more than 10,000 years old.

Ergo, if they are not more than 10,000 years old, then we are mistaken about the nature of God as revealed through the Word. This is a true undermining of the faith. Forget human wisdom; we have nothing.

 

[Pats]

Fascinating!

The gist is that I see a contradiction between exploring the process of six day creation, scientifically, and the nature of God as He reveals Himself. If science (human oberservation coupled with reason) were able to uncover the Genesis creation account, then the culmination of this science would negate the need for the Genesis creation account as it appears in Scripture.

I'm not sure that the need for the account would be negated, but I think I'm in agreement with this portion of what you've said. Let me paraphrase, Human observation coupled with human reason, science, is unable to measure miraculouse historical events such as God's creation of the universe.

After all, the creation account is so general and says so little about the particulars,

Perhaps the particulars of creation are not that important. I think the important part is twofold.

One, the geneology leading from Adam to Christ. It seems to me there are some prophesies that rely on that?

Two, the continued references to how sin entered the world by one man, Adam. If one man, Adam, didn't commit the first sin as the New Testament reiterates, how can one man, Jesus, save the world? They seem linked together in the New Testament.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

and the skipping to

Romans 5:15-19

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

I cannot understand how this passage explaining the plan of salvation can possible be comparing a mythological man with a literal man, a mythological explination for sin with a literal message of salvation from that sin.

I don't understand how that could work. I'm sure it's a what some here view as a PRATT, but it's the best of my understanding.

and science could continue to make observations until Christ returns (and possibly after, depending upon your endtimes views). The scientific account of creation would be "better than" the Genesis account. This must be true if only because there are only a couple of chapters of Genesis devoted to the subject, and scientists could write whole textbooks.

I think this is the point where I don't agree with you. How can science hope to evalute and explain a miraculous event?

Furthermore, doesn't science make some leaps in order to explain common descent?

Is it that rock solid that disbelief in it is "foolishness?"

Ergo, the passages in question have become irrelevant in the last few years. This conclusion would be difficult for me to accept, but I think I could do it. It is the other side of the coin that is contrary to my faith.

If we observe something that is contrary to our interpretation of the Scriptures (observing evolution, for example), then it is impossible to write it off as, "the wisdom of men." After all, we have caused a contradiction within our own perspectives.

Realizing that Christians of the past believed it a spiritual matter to percieve that the sun rotated around the earth, and that the earth was flat, I see what you are saying. Go back even further, you can't touch a woman on her period. I'm with ya.

On the one hand, we believe in one God Who reveals Himself through His Word. The whole world persists on God's Word. It is this (in some measure) that allowed science (observation and reason) to arise in the first place. Because we know God's Word (esp. revealed in the person of Jesus Christ), we have reason to believe that what we observe to be corresponds to what actually is.

I would agree, almost 100%, we have to take into account that the human mind is easily fooled by optical illusions, slight of hand, and the like.

Not only that, we should go by what we observe. Fine. When was the last time we observed common descent in action, particularly human common descent from chimps or apes? Is this an observation or is it man's best guess? Is it an estimation and how far of a leap from the known data is it?

Mark has an entire thread on this right now, and while I've seen a lot of stink going on in the thread, I haven't seen his finding refuted yet.

If we find trees with rings that lead us back, past 10,000 years, those trees are actually more than 10,000 years old.

I would agree, except that Adam was not created a newborn. Was he a lie?

Furthermore, I can see how the the Creation story may be taken literally with an old earth perspective. I'm not extreamely concerned over the age of the earth.

Ergo, if they are not more than 10,000 years old, then we are mistaken about the nature of God as revealed through the Word. This is a true undermining of the faith. Forget human wisdom; we have nothing.

I don't follow you here? Come again?

 

[Willtor]

Fascinating!

I'm not sure that the need for the account would be negated, but I think I'm in agreement with this portion of what you've said. Let me paraphrase, Human observation coupled with human reason, science, is unable to measure miraculouse historical events such as God's creation of the universe.

In some sense, yes, this is correct. But I think a more fruitful exploration looks at things the other way around. If we could have uncovered these things ourselves, there would be no need for God to tell us. This is not, of course, a complete argument. The complete argument takes into account God, as we know Him, and that He is profoundly interested in providing for us precisely those things that we cannot provide for ourselves.

The most glib form of this argument is that we cannot hold a conception of God that equates Him with Santa Claus. We cannot say, "Isn't it great that He gave us what we were able to discover for ourselves?" The gifts of God, as we know Him are eternal. The truth of the matter is inseparable from the Word revealed to us.

Perhaps the particulars of creation are not that important. I think the important part is twofold.

One, the geneology leading from Adam to Christ. It seems to me there are some prophesies that rely on that?

Two, the continued references to how sin entered the world by one man, Adam. If one man, Adam, didn't commit the first sin as the New Testament reiterates, how can one man, Jesus, save the world? They seem linked together in the New Testament.

Romans 5:12

. . .

and the skipping to

. . .

Romans 5:15-19

. . .

I cannot understand how this passage explaining the plan of salvation can possible be comparing a mythological man with a literal man, a mythological explination for sin with a literal message of salvation from that sin.[/COLOR]

I don't understand how that could work. I'm sure it's a what some here view as a PRATT, but it's the best of my understanding.

It all depends on how one views a myth. Not that I think you have disregarded the value of myth, but that our society (even once it has accepted that ancient societies valued it) doesn't understand how to think about what myth says next to what is fact. The only thing I can think to recommend is reading the first few chapters of this. This is a work by St. Athanasius called, "Against the Heathen." If I recall, I think it was written A.D. 310, or so (a good, long while before it was known that the Earth was ancient). Athanasius never treats Genesis except for its mythical value. It should be apparent, then, that the intended conclusions of a myth (if the myth is true) can be used for accurate theological and philosophical understanding.

What is, in fact, the case? I don't know. Perhaps there was some community to which God revealed Himself. The first humans? Some time later? I have no idea. No doubt, it is not as easy to draw out the truth from the fact as it is from the myth. But isn't this always the case? It has been my experience that the frustration of most YEC's with evolution is that its implications on truth are so ambiguous. The truth is precisely what is revealed in the Word. God gave us the Word in part because we couldn't tell the difference between truth and fallacy as it applied to spiritual things.

I think this is the point where I don't agree with you. How can science hope to evalute and explain a miraculous event?

Furthermore, doesn't science make some leaps in order to explain common descent?

Is it that rock solid that disbelief in it is "foolishness?"

First, I don't think you did disagree with me. This is exactly the argument regularly being made by TE's. There really should not be a way for science to discuss miraculous events. In the case of the flood (just as an example), that the water was there should be evident to science. The method of its arrival, and the method if its disappearance should be totally mysterious. It is in this line of thought that many of us have trouble conceiving of a "YEC scientist." It is difficult not because a YEC must be a fool, but that a YEC scientist is necessarily the manifestation of a contradiction.

As to whether evolutionists make leaps of reasoning, it is certainly true that scientists make observations and they speculate as to how those observations are related to others. But it is the nature of science that those speculations do not get published (except in "future work" sections). Those speculations are formulated and a researcher formulates a test (or series of tests) to decide between his speculation and others. This is what turns his speculation into hypothesis. He asks, "if this is so, and if these other things are not so, what can I do, or what should I expect to find, in order to make such a distinction?" The leaps you speak of are not arbitrary leaps, but calculated leaps. And once a leap is made, if a researcher finds himself on less than solid ground, his work will not withstand scrutiny. Other people will make different "leaps," and our original researcher will find himself alone.

Is common ancestry so solid that disbelief in it is "foolishness?" No. There is a great deal of information and misinformation presented to the lay person. That any such person should distinguish between the two is quite a feat, to my way of thinking. I was convinced by human tracks inside dinosaur tracks, trees crossing strata, and a world-wide layer of sediment. No longer. The simple fact is, I am not the brightest person, and I am easily taken in. Is there any hope for me (and those like me) for uncovering what is, in fact, the case? I think so, and you can ask me about it if you like. At any rate, I am not quick to call anyone a fool.

Realizing that Christians of the past believed it a spiritual matter to percieve that the sun rotated around the earth, and that the earth was flat, I see what you are saying. Go back even further, you can't touch a woman on her period. I'm with ya.

I would agree, almost 100%, we have to take into account that the human mind is easily fooled by optical illusions, slight of hand, and the like.

I gave a mild understanding of science before. It was something like, "observation coupled with reason." (I am too lazy to look back) This is not quite sufficient. Science occurs in a community. It is not an isolated thing. It is not isolated specifically because the human mind is easily fooled, and such things are less likely to occur when many people are permitted to explore the observed phenomenon. We are apt to mistake what we observe, individually, but it is the nature of the inquiring community that new approaches and tests be developed that will better allow us to apprehend the object of perception.

Not only that, we should go by what we observe. Fine. When was the last time we observed common descent in action, particularly human common descent from chimps or apes? Is this an observation or is it man's best guess? Is it an estimation and how far of a leap from the known data is it?

Mark has an entire thread on this right now, and while I've seen a lot of stink going on in the thread, I haven't seen his finding refuted yet.

To answer the second question, first, the nature of Mark's concern began with some mathematical conclusions he'd reached. Within the first few posts, it was shown that his mathematical conclusions were faulty because he had done his math wrong. Beyond that, it was shown that he had an inadequate understanding of what it was that he considered. That is, the question itself supposed too much. How many mutations in such and such a period of time is reasonable to expect? I don't know. Apparently he didn't either. Now, to my (uninformed) mind, his question continues to stand only because my mind is uninformed. Maybe the number of mutations is too high. But I cannot act incredulous because my conceptions of what is a large number may be off by orders of magnitude. My conceptions of what is a large number is (frankly) arbitrary.

As to observations of common descent, experiments are done all the time to show speciation. The child specieses are known to share common ancestry because the researchers had the parent species in the laboratory. Observations are made with regard to the DNA of the children with respect to each other, and with respect to the parents. It is safe to say that the researchers have some idea of what sorts of things can be expected when comparing and contrasting DNA samples of species that share common ancestors. For particulars, you'd have to ask evolutionary biologists who perform such experiments. What fossil evidence do we have? I don't know.

For all of these particulars, I am the wrong person to ask. Why do I think we evolved? You may be able to infer the solution from my previous responses, but if you'd like I can write it out, explicitly.

I would agree, except that Adam was not created a newborn. Was he a lie?

Furthermore, I can see how the the Creation story may be taken literally with an old earth perspective. I'm not extreamely concerned over the age of the earth.

I'm going to respond on two levels. First, it's not clear to me from the story that Adam was created a fully-grown man. Even when I was a YEC, this was never clear to me. How long did Adam spend in the garden? Who can say? He was 130 when Eve had Seth, but how old was he when they were kicked out of the garden? On another level, if it's a myth (or possibly a saga), he can hardly be called a lie. Even supposing the fact of the matter was a community, that the saga should make one man of this community is not a lie. Things are what they are, but the truth of the matter doesn't change. Again, read the first few chapters of that Athanasius book. The chapters are each a paragraph or two, so it should take no time.

I don't follow you here? Come again?

Ergo, if they are not more than 10,000 years old, then we are mistaken about the nature of God as revealed through the Word. This is a true undermining of the faith. Forget human wisdom; we have nothing.

Yeah, it's a little ambiguous. Sorry. Here's a more complete thought:

We have it on the authority of the Word that God is the author of all that is (seen and unseen). We are neither mistaken about its existence, nor its persistence. Things are as they seem to be (at least, at some level). Now, we can draw faulty conclusions from what we perceive (harkening back to science, not I, but we the community), but we cannot say that the perception is a deception. As such, although I can construct false memories of events that never occurred, those memories won't fit with what I endeavor to uncover through further exploration.

That we should seek deeper apprehension of those things we observe, therefore, appears very consistent with God's revelation. Earlier, I mentioned my interpretation of "nature declares the glory of the Lord." One can hardly fault another for intending to observe and reason, except where observation and reason is unethical. If one observes the results of ages that never existed, of events that never occurred, animals and plants that never lived, environmental changes that never transpired, although we cannot say that we certainly are deceived, we also cannot say that exploration (even through honest inquiry) is a fruitful pursuit.

We are provided with an epistemic limit below that which we have uncovered through our other observations and reasoning. In some sense, "nature declares the glory of the Lord," has become, "be awed, but do not explore." This is not the command of the same God Who has revealed the nature of relationship as being manifested through apprehension. When a thing was unethical, it was so only because God wanted us not to have a relationship of that sort. We are forbidden from interaction with demons, and we are warned about our relationships to mammon. But relationships with these things are, by their very nature, opposed to a relationship with God. To apprehend these things is to be at enmity with God. Nature, on the other hand, is said to declare His glory.

If we have to reclassify a certain set of things in spite of observation and honest reason I am deeply concerned about the validity of the revelation that all things consist and persist on the Word of the relational God. I may be mistaken on this point, however. If God created the world 10,000 years ago, and gave them a history that predates creation, then that is what He did. But make no mistake: it is quite contrary to the very tools God gave us for the sake of exploration.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There can be no real controversy between true science and rightly interpreted scripture. Each is needed to fully explain the other. God reveals his own nature, as well as Satans nature, in the creation. God created men like himself. To understand God, a man must understand himself. To understand himself, a man must understand God.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There can be no real controversy between true science and rightly interpreted scripture. Each is needed to fully explain the other. God reveals his own nature, as well as Satans nature, in the creation. God created men like himself. To understand God, a man must understand himself. To understand himself, a man must understand God.

a profound epistemological statement first made about 450 years ago

1.Without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God

Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain. Here, again, the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more apparent from our poverty. In particular, the miserable ruin into which the revolt of the first man has plunged us, compels us to turn our eyes upwards; not only that while hungry and famishing we may thence ask what we want, but being aroused by fear may learn humility. For as there exists in man something like a world of misery, and ever since we were stript of the divine attire our naked shame discloses an immense series of disgraceful properties every man, being stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness, in this way necessarily obtains at least some knowledge of God. Thus, our feeling of ignorance, vanity, want, weakness, in short, depravity and corruption, reminds us, (see Calvin on John 4: 10,) that in the Lord, and none but He, dwell the true light of wisdom, solid virtue, exuberant goodness. We are accordingly urged by our own evil things to consider the good things of God; and, indeed, we cannot aspire to Him in earnest until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves. For what man is not disposed to rest in himself? Who, in fact, does not thus rest, so long as he is unknown to himself; that is, so long as he is contented with his own endowments, and unconscious or unmindful of his misery? Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him.

from: http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk1ch01.html



see: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/lesson4_essay.html

 

[OldWiseGuy]

a profound epistemological statement first made about 450 years ago


from: http://www.smartlink.net/%7Edouglas/calvin/bk1ch01.html



see: http://www.dakotacom.net/%7Ermwillia/lesson4_essay.html

Pure religious goobledegook. I meant that an honest man who knows who he is can appreciate where his leanings come from. The most notable trait in man is anger. The most notable trait of God is also anger. Both God and man get angry for the same reasons. Discover those reasons and you'll understand yourself, and thus God, much better. Note that both God and man use violence to assuage their anger.

 

[Willtor]

Pure religious goobledegook. I meant that an onest man who knows who he is can appreciate where his leanings come from. The most notable trait in man is anger. The most notable trait of God is also-anger. The most notable trait of women is suscepability to deceit. In whose image was woman created?

God's.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

God's.

I had edited out my question concerning women. It must have slipped through. Anyway, the church isn't ready to deal with that question.

 

[Pats]

Hi Wiltor, I don't want you to think I'm not coming back to continue the conversation. It's just that we're having a lengthy, thought provoking conversation and I haven't had time to respond yet. I'm hoping I will later today.

I had edited out my question concerning women. It must have slipped through. Anyway, the church isn't ready to deal with that question.

If you think "the church" isn't ready for your theory there, you better find out if Christian women are ready before you start trouble.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hi Wiltor, I don't want you to think I'm not coming back to continue the conversation. It's just that we're having a lengthy, thought provoking conversation and I haven't had time to respond yet. I'm hoping I will later today.



If you think "the church" isn't ready for your theory there, you better find out if Christian women are ready before you start trouble.

This trouble has been brewing for thousands of years. Sooner or later the church will have to deal with it.

 

[Willtor]

Hi Wiltor, I don't want you to think I'm not coming back to continue the conversation. It's just that we're having a lengthy, thought provoking conversation and I haven't had time to respond yet. I'm hoping I will later today.

. . .

No rush. I'm not going anywhere.

This trouble has been brewing for thousands of years. Sooner or later the church will have to deal with it.

For someone who argues that he has such a literal historical understanding of Genesis, you have missed the blatant assertion: "So God created Adam in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." The woman isn't just sort of thrown into this passage as an addendum.