True knowledge?

[dcalling]

I think only god knows it. No one can surely tell us what's going on except god. I used to think the 6 days are literal because with out the sun how do you count a day?

but you just never know if it is really just 6x24 hours. C14 half decas in about 6000 years, so it can't date millions years at all, and all other dating methods are just not dependable at all.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Dear Radagast,

With all due respect, please accept my apologies for my inaccurate representation of your position. In my defense I'd just like to say that there was no malice or undeclared agenda at work in my post. It was a genuine misunderstanding, leading to a misinterpretation, leading to a misrepresentation.

Let me see if I can explain this to your satisfaction.

This is what I originally wrote...
"I have a question that springs from a recent discussion with a science-denying Christian. He said that science constitutes false knowledge about nature and reality."
And you responded to this on March 5, saying...
"That would not be a mainstream Christian interpretation, and (as a scientist) I would strongly disagree with it."

Then, on the following day, I replied to Leslie Dellow, like this...
"I happen to agree with what you say about Genesis not being a true description of the physical course of events, Leslie. You'll note that Radagast wrote that (as a scientist) he strongly disagreed with that too. So we three are of one mind on that."

So I've wrongly construed your position...
That science constitutes false knowledge about nature and reality and that such a position is not a mainstream Christian interpretation.
to mean...
Science constitutes true knowledge about nature and reality and that such a position (yours) is a mainstream Christian interpretation.
Is that correct?

Ok, that is what thought was correct at the time.
Then, proceeding on that false basis I wrongly concluded that you would therefore consider Genesis not to be a true description of the physical course of events. And so I wrongly concluded that you, Leslie and I were in agreement on that point and replied to him on that false basis. I do hope you can see that I was mistaken, not malicious? I shouldn't have spoken for you like that and when I did I did so wrongly.
.
.
.
Radagast,

You've also expressed the concern that this thread is veering off-topic.
Please let me reassure you that this isn't so. When I began it, my purpose was to try and understand more fully why some Christians feel the need to deny science. Why it is they can't reach a complementary position that satisfies both scripture and science. So far I've received some very illuminating responses. For all the responses; helpful, difficult or puzzling, I'm grateful.

As an amateur astronomer, a science buff and someone who seeks to increase his understanding of the relationship between science and Christianity, I stand to learn a great deal from you - a Christian and a scientist. Therefore, could you please help me to comprehend what Christians consider to be true knowledge about reality, from both the Biblical and scientific perspectives?

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

To Harry 3412...

Thanks very much for your fascinating reply Harry. You've given me a great deal to think about and follow up. However, as you'll have seen, I need to make a reconciliation with Radagast my first order of business in this thread.

Therefore, if you could hang in there, I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[pico]

Hello all, as a non-scientist, Greek and Latin text guy, I follow the above with great interest.

Everett, let me know if this would derail the thread. Your question about true vs. false knowledge pertains to scientific theories, correct? If so, do you want to characterize scientific theories as "true" in a strong sense? Or would you rather say that a theory proves its mettle as long as it continues to make accurate predictions, and perhaps, as long as it does this w/ some economy? This last to provide reason why, for example, we don't use Ptolemaic theory; its application is uneconomical.

I think of Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery, to which Radagast alluded above. Popper insisted that a scientific theory is not verified, strictly speaking, but rather, becomes, shall I say, more robust, the more it stands up to scrutiny in the crucible of prediction and testing?

Could we say that the results of experiments about theoretical predictions can be verified, but that the theory itself just keeps going without being falsified?

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Hello Pico.

Ummm... I'm sorry about this but I don't think you're permitted to make any input in this thread. I believe the purpose of this section is for non-Christians (like me) to explore Christianity by asking questions of the resident Christians.

(Could someone please help me out here? That's right, isn't it? I do want to abide by the rules and guidelines of this forum, but I don't want to step on any toes, either.)

So, as much as I appreciate what you say, I don't think that I can, in all good conscience, respond to you about your post or even refer to it's content, unless someone else does so first. Sorry again.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[pico]

My apologies for not having read the Stickies. P