Freedom and Independence in Scientific Inquiry

don · 10-18-09 12:03 pm

Freedom and Independence in Scientific Inquiry<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Go, my sons, sell your lands, your houses, your garments and your jewelry ; burn up your books. On the other hand, buy yourselves stout shoes, get away to the mountains, search the valleys, the deserts, the shores of the sea, and the deepest recesses of the earth ; mark well the distinctions between animals, the differences among plants, the various kinds of minerals, the properties and mode of origin of everything that exists. Be not ashamed to learn by heart the astronomy and terrestrial philosophy of the peasantry. Lastly, purchase coals, build furnaces, watch and experiment without wearying. In this way, and no other, will you arrive at a knowledge of things and of their properties." 1 Petras Severinus, Idea Medetinae Philosophicae, 1571, p. 73, cap. vii. De principiis corporum (cited by D'Aubuisson). <a href="http://www.archive.org/stream/foundersofgeolog00geikrich/foundersofgeolog00geikrich_djvu.txt" target=_top>http://www.archive.org/stream/foundersofgeolog00ge ikrich/foundersofgeolog00geikrich_djvu.txt</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>As much as I reverence the Word of God, when I begin to inquire scientifically, the text of Scripture becomes another collection of assertions to be tested, where possible. From a scientific viewpoint, the text's assertions that can be tested, should be tested. There is nothing sacred in science. I am not just a scientist, Defying all things "sacred". I am a person of faith, Reaching out to the God I "know"; The very God reported in the text, Whose assertions I am now submitting To my test tube and bunsen burner. I don't apply God Himself To the test tube of my senses; Only the testable assertions Of what we, by faith, call "His Word" and "His Works" The mind of God is beyond science; Prophetic expression of divine concern; He's untestable but not unreachable; Beyond observation but not experience. My science quest defies the sanctity all that's testable; My heart reaches up by faith to God, My helper and my mentor. He, too, defies the sanctity Of all that's testable. (Message edited by Don on October 18, 2009)

bob_2 · 10-18-09 2:58 pm

God is transcendant, and therefore out of the realm of science, at least to the extent of being able to explain causation. The results of a transcendant act, has a physical result, like the flood, that was initiated by a transcendant God. Search as you will Mr. Scientist for the cause and origin in vain. However, let's make this distinction that Elaine gets confused often. Those who believe in a God and His transendant acts, have not given up on science and its marvels it has brought to society and mankind. Medicine, Architecture, Physics, etc. But Science needs to recognize as should Religion, where their limitations are.

don · 10-18-09 4:27 pm

The results of a transcendant act, has a physical result like the flood, that was initiated by a transcendant God. Search as you will Mr. Scientist for the cause and origin in vain. The Bible presents historical events with divine interpretation. Considers this story about King Saul's death<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:1 Chronicles 10, NIV 1 Now the Philistines fought against Israel; the Israelites fled before them, and many fell slain on Mount Gilboa. 2 The Philistines pressed hard after Saul and his sons, and they killed his sons Jonathan, Abinadab and Malki-Shua. 3 The fighting grew fierce around Saul, and when the archers overtook him, they wounded him. 4 Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and abuse me." But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. 5 When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died. 6 So Saul and his three sons died, and all his house died together. 7 When all the Israelites in the valley saw that the army had fled and that Saul and his sons had died, they abandoned their towns and fled. And the Philistines came and occupied them. 8 The next day, when the Philistines came to strip the dead, they found Saul and his sons fallen on Mount Gilboa. 9 They stripped him and took his head and his armor, and sent messengers throughout the land of the Philistines to proclaim the news among their idols and their people. 10 They put his armor in the temple of their gods and hung up his head in the temple of Dagon. 11 When all the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead heard of everything the Philistines had done to Saul, 12 all their valiant men went and took the bodies of Saul and his sons and brought them to Jabesh. Then they buried their bones under the great tree in Jabesh, and they fasted seven days. 13 Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance, 14 and did not inquire of the LORD. So the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Notes<ol><li>If a journalist happened to be present for this, all he could have observed ends with verse 12. Historians of the day could have interviewed people. Crime Scene Investigators could have taken DNA samples. They could have raided the temple of Dagon and retrieved the head of Saul. An autopsy could have been performed on his body. But, verse 13 is beyond these sciences. <LI>The transcendent actions of God are beyond science. <LI>Regarding the flood. A catastrophic universal flood should be one of the most obvious events for science to investigate even 4000+ years later. As one Genesis flood advocate put it, "The rocks have a worldwide flood written all over them." <LI>Geologists have moved away from a strict uniformitarian explanation of the past. Now, they believe that a series of catastrophes explain what they find in the "rocks". <LI>The actions, as from God, cannot be examined. Just as the death of Saul, so all the actions of God are beyond science. <LI>The scientist can read the assertions from Scripture, if he is so inclined. He can then take those assertions and look for evidence in the world around him. This is a legitimate quest of science. His discoveries don't prove anything about God but they may show something about the written Word. <LI>Radiometric dating, core samples from ice, sea beds, tree rings, historical landmarks, all provide legitimate data for the scientist to discover. He does not need to feel that all the data must agree with his understanding of Scripture. <LI>I believe that Adventist scientists such as Ervin Taylor and Peter Edgar Hare retain enough of the Adventist mindset to make them healthfully skeptical of the assertions of "unbelieving" scientists. eg. Taylor, through radiocarbon dating, helped reduce the interpreted age of some New World skeletons; from 70 000 years to 11 000 years.</li></ol>

john8verse32 · 10-18-09 10:28 pm

The Bible presents historical events with divine interpretation. Considers this story about King Saul's death ok...lets go to the Bible, the inerrant source for divine information about historical events, such as how King Saul died: option one: Saul committed suicide. 1 Samuel 31:4-6 Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. So Saul died. 1 Chronicles 10:4 Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. but option two differs: Saul was killed by an Amalekite. 2 Samuel 1:8-10 And he [Saul] said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me. So I stood upon him, and slew him. but option 3 suggests a different nationality for the killer: Saul was killed by the Philistines. 2 Samuel 21:12 The Philistines had slain Saul. and option 4 syggests that God Himself killed Saul.... God killed him. 1 Chronicles 10:14 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse. *************************************** and we are supposed to believe that snakes and donkeys talk? that a guy can live in the belly of a whale? that the sun can go backwards? that a flood caused by 40 days of rain covered Mt Everest? how can we believe the unbelievable parts when the simple historical events cannot be consistently explained? I mean, if the Navy's Angels can maintain this wingtip to wingtip precision, why couldn't God's angels have done a better job of precision inspiration <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/2049.jpg" alt="">

don · 10-19-09 12:43 am

how can we believe the unbelievable parts when the simple historical events cannot be consistently explained? The story of King Saul is not too hard to pull together: 1 Samuel 31:4-6 Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. So Saul died. 1 Chronicles 10:4 Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. 1 Chronicles 10:14 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse. The first two agree on the face of it. For the third passage: The action of God is what I call "prophetic interpretation". Almost all of God's actions have two levels: the political level and the divine action level. The "prophetic" writer explains God's role. He draws back the curtain and explains the theological facts. 2 Samuel 21:12 The Philistines had slain Saul. In a broad, or sweeping, sense this is true. The Philistines attacked Israel and a major result was the death of Saul. 2 Samuel 1:8-10 And he [Saul] said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me. So I stood upon him, and slew him. _________________________________________ 8And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. 9He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me. 10So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: _________________________________________ Notice the source you used left out important sections of the account; i.e. the parts I have highlighted in blue. If the Amalekite told the truth, it seems that he came upon Saul after he had fallen on his sword but had not yet died. The "normal" parts of Scripture can be reconciled in most instances. From a faith community or societal viewpoint: the Scriptures were preserved, copied and recopied and recopied from generation to generation. These ancient believers were just as intelligent as we are. Obviously, as they tended to the Scriptures, they so no major problem reconciling these different passages. .

jag · 10-19-09 6:34 am

Don, As for me, there are too many such passages that require too much twisting for me to accept them at face value. It makes God a rather careless and untidy being that probably can't be trusted. What works for me is another interpretation - simply that authors of the Bible were relaying their God-experience. They did not mean to be inerrant or infallible. We learn from them as from our ancestors in faith. The same way we learn from our elders - not uncritically, but analytically. This way we manage to avoid bibliolatry - the original sin of fundamentalist churches.

don · 10-19-09 7:11 am

authors of the Bible were relaying their God-experience. They did not mean to be inerrant or infallible. We learn from them as from our ancestors in faith. The same way we learn from our elders - not uncritically, but analytically. Relaying their God-experience. I am okay with such a view. There is Biblical evidence that some of the authors reported their words as coming from God directly. The story of Saul's death is not so identified. There is the opposite view that the stories are all myth. Yes, even "God-experience" myth, but myth, just the same. I note that you did not assert such. For me, the naturally possible events reported in the Scriptures are assumed to be generally correct. They don't have to agree inerrantly. I believe that the authors intended for their stories to be consistent within the stories themselves. Otherwise, those listening to their stories would "catch" them on it. If they can be shown to be consistent by the simple use of logic, I opt for that view. (I don't consider such an exercise "twisting", usually.) (Message edited by Don on October 19, 2009)

jag · 10-19-09 10:43 pm

Don, I avoid the term "myth", because - very much like "fact", "theory" etc. it has very different meanings in popular language and scientific language. If I say that the Bible consists of myths, then you may totally misinterpret my intention. But if we are using a language of sociology and anthropology, then the Bible is indeed myths. It does not mean "fables", but rather some general, non-literal truths and spiritual experiences. As an example, if someone reads the 2 inconsistent Genesis flood stories and tries to tell me that one pair equals seven pairs, then to me it is not only bad maths, but it is twisting the texts to suit their interpretation. I have no problem admitting the inconsistency, since the theory of multiple authors of the Pentateuch is rather well-proven and since my Christianity does not require worshipping the Bible, or even taking it literally. Even if Jesus were discovered to have been married with a child, it wouldn't change my religion. Fundamentalists/literalists, on the other hand, would be shattered.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 10-18-09 12:03 pm

Freedom and Independence in Scientific Inquiry

#2 10-18-09 2:58 pm

Re: Freedom and Independence in Scientific Inquiry

#3 10-18-09 4:27 pm

Re: Freedom and Independence in Scientific Inquiry

#4 10-18-09 10:28 pm

Re: Freedom and Independence in Scientific Inquiry

#5 10-19-09 12:43 am

Re: Freedom and Independence in Scientific Inquiry

#6 10-19-09 6:34 am

Re: Freedom and Independence in Scientific Inquiry

#7 10-19-09 7:11 am

Re: Freedom and Independence in Scientific Inquiry

#8 10-19-09 10:43 pm

Re: Freedom and Independence in Scientific Inquiry

Board footer