| Welcome to The Sanctified Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and responding to posts. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| I was just at Theologica... | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 23 2012, 03:50 PM (281 Views) | |
| Damian | Apr 23 2012, 03:50 PM Post #1 |
Wears Skinny Jeans
|
... I was glad to see that Daniel is still harping on Genesis, Marv is still irrefutably answering him, Rey tosses in an occasional jab (meaning Scripture and logic), Scott is still in love with all things that deny inerrancy, and I'm still banned :-) Having said that, I found this interesting statement from Jason... I hope you don't mind that I'm copying it here Jas! "Wow! This brings us back to the issue of presuppositions. Paul must bow to science. So, too, must inspired Scripture- the Word of God. That's why we never truly get anywhere in these arguments. This isn't even about Daniel's logic, or his lack thereof. It is about how we view the authority of the Scripture. We have just seen the plain truth before our eyes that Scripture is trumped by science. And some of wondered why I spent so much time on the inerrancy issue..." That made me wants to rant about science for a moment. Previously I wrote an essay where I explored Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, where he demonstrates the basic weakness of empiricism in general and the scientific method in particular. Kuhn shows that while science has always been taken as the prime example of objective knowledge rooted in observational sense experience, this method is restricted and flawed. Science does not build on previous models; rather models have anomalies which cannot be accounted for by the prevailing model. When the anomalies become so great the weight of the model can no longer support it, the model collapses and is replaced. None of this is of course new; the problems of induction (moving from the particular to the general) have been understood for centuries. Also, modern scientific empiricism cannot account for universals. In this regard, Aristotle and Aquinas are far superior to modern empiricists in that they posit universals within the individuals subjects thus they at least account for them. Change, inertia, gravity, laws of nature, or any other “scientific” theorems are no more than mythical, occult terms to describe our overwhelming confidence in our complete lack of understanding. By “occult” here is meant in the sense that Isaac Newton used it – qualities that lie hidden, as it were, within the bodies and unknown as causes manifesting effects. Gravity, inertia, energy, all the laws of physic in fact, falls under this category. The late Gordon Clark used the example of the law of the pendulum. The law only applies to a bob of perfectly and evenly distributed weight. No such perfect bob exists, even in a laboratory. The law assumes that the perfect bob swings on a tensionless string. There is no such string so the law does not actually describe any real pendulum. Also, the law assumes that the pendulum swings on an axis with no friction. No such axis exists. Therefore the laws of observational science cannot observe any such pendulum. The law describes something that does not exist, therefore it describes absolutely nothing. The modern concepts of science are all exactly and precisely as far away from answering “how" the world works as were Democritus, Heraclitus and Parmenides. Aristotelian physics gave way to Newtonian mechanicism, which in turn collapsed under the weight of Einstein’s relativity. We have moved nowhere closer to solutions; in many ways, considering the dogmatism of the religion of modern materialism with its high priesthood of scientists, we have regressed past the pre-Socratics, past Thales, and devolved to the period of Homeric myth. The next stage in this regression (which is showing signs in our culture today) is a neo-barbarianism where “might makes right.” While I hold to the basic reliability of sense perception (all denials of which are forced and temporary), it is nonetheless highly problematic. I would agree with Augustine that a truth is always a necessary and, therefore, immutable proposition. Necessity, eternity, and immutability are distinctive characteristics of every truth – in other words, truths don’t “evolve”. But for something to be eternal, necessary, and immutable, is the same as saying “God”. But how does one come to knowledge of the eternal, necessary, and immutable from sense perception, form the scientific method? All we perceive with the senses is mutable; it lacks stability and cannot therefore be the basis of true knowledge. Truths therefore must be grounded in the mind of God. Truth is therefore independent of mind which is in flux. When the mind grasps truth, it grasps Truth, in other words it grasps God. |
 |
 
|
| Deleted User | Apr 23 2012, 04:51 PM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
I guess I'm curious what it is you are trying to say. While you agree that sensory perception is basically reliable, science is mythological and unworthy of any credibility? Are you talking about how it bears on Genesis or is this like the cultural war on science? Are all the Christians who devote their lives to scientific pursuits close to apostasy or are they the only scientists worthy of the name? |
|
|
|
| Damian | Apr 24 2012, 02:50 AM Post #3 |
|
Wears Skinny Jeans
|
There's a culture war against science? I'm not aware of it. Most Christians I know, from all sides of the spectrum are totally in love with science. My critique is epistemological and goes to debates between Plato and Aristotle, even before that into the pre-Socratics. I'm making an epistemological point. Ultimate truth cannot come through observational methods (empiricism). Nor are scientific laws pure discoveries since even the process of "averaging" the collected data relies heavily on non-observed suppositions brought in by the scientist. Heck even measurements themselves are nothing more than arbitrary selections of "two marks" on a piece of wood, or the peaks between waves (why one wave crest and not two or three?) - in other words, there's no such thing as an "inch". This is not my idea. It's been the general direction of philosophy of science since about the time of Einstein. The rapid rate at which previous laws are discarded and replaced by news ones should give anyone pause. So what is science good for? Lots. It produces good things like antibiotics. It produces bad things like chemical and biological weapons. But what it does, it does so based on fortunate (or in the case of bio weapons, unfortunate) mistakes. It is not and cannot be the basis for ultimate truth. That can only be found in God. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Apr 24 2012, 04:52 AM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
Do they love science like Chicago loves their Cubbies? Or is it a matter that they give science more credence than you think they should? This has been since Einstein? Sounds like a quite strident over-reaction to finding Newton in error. Kinda like in the Chick tracts when the Christian student learns (from the so,so elite and effeminate professor) there's a Greek text. While not denying that some people think that science will find ultimate truth, I don't see it as all that common. People pretty much know what they are getting with science. While for some science is a god, the more see it as a worthy vocation. |
|
|
|
| Damian | Apr 24 2012, 06:58 AM Post #5 |
|
Wears Skinny Jeans
|
I never said science was an unworthy vocation. I believe that Arminianism is wrong for a whole bunch of reasons. That doesn't mean that I think all Arminian scholars or pastors are in an unworthy vocation (or rather unworthy of their vocation). Nor are Arminians close to apostasy (well... maybe they are ;-) Same with the scientist who assumes to much of his or her methodology and world-view. I also think that most of modern culture, and the Christian sub-culture do think that science will ultimately demonstrate Truth. The intelligent design and the Ken Ham crowd are both equally enamored by empiricism and scientific claims of certainty. The only difference between the Ken Ham types and the materialist is the interpretation of (flawed) sense data. Thomists, while primarily Aristotelian fall into a slightly different category but that's a different topic. Has God created? If Aristotle is correct the world was never created. But if God speaks and says that he created the world, the question is answered. This is not to say that scripture answers all questions and that we need to be ignorant on points not discussed therein. But there are important points of cosmology, psychology, philosophy of history, morality, etc, on which the scriptures do speak and that protects the Christian from plausible but false theories. |
|
|
|
| ReyReynoso | Apr 30 2012, 06:48 AM Post #6 |
AKA Navin Johnson
|
Rambling waters up ahead: You got banned? What the what what? You're right that this is fundamentally an epistemological problem but some of these folk (note Daniel and Biologos and even Ken Ham) have made it an ontological issue. The nature of the natural world is, they say, God's revelation but then make a leap from What Is to What It Must Be Saying. So you have a rock with layers and two sets of eyes looking at the same rock and concluding that it Must Be Saying "This is Old" or "This is Young." The irony is that the former crowd is quick to mis-appropriate Calvin's "God speaks in a lisp" or "God speaks in baby talk" to say that whatever the Scripture says, it says it to another age and another people and must be only accessible in the flawed milieu. If it occurs in Scripture, then why can't that flawed milieu also be seen in our day? After all, we're on this side of the Fall (if they grant that the Fall ever happened). What makes our generation so much better than Those Generations? Ken Ham at least says that you have to bank on God, which I agree with but then he goes and embraces this weird amalgamation (which I guess is needed) where he needs this or that science to under-gird his truth claims. Alvin Plantinga does a good job of highlighting a lot of this evidentialism and underscoring how weak it really is on the one hand and then how we don't normally function the way the evidentialist demands on the other. I'd like to read his new book on Creation and Evolution where the real battle lies because he takes quick jabs at all these things throughout his works even if he believes them. I don't see a lot of people verbalizing that Science will find the ultimate truth, but I see a lot of that approach. Science is almost this wizardly thing that my-oh-my-one-must not-deny! I'm not saying that people approach it as wizardy but you see the outworking in interactions. Scientists say X and we must do this or that. Science changes its mind and we don't bat an eye. We become suspect of the mechanic giving us a dark diagnosis when we go in to get an oil change because we see a direct correlation between his observations and our pockets but I don't think the regular Joe sees any direct correlation (if there is one) to the observations of this naturalist vs. the observations of this theist on the same bit of data. And in that sort of environment is where we wind up elevating observation to evidential truth and automatically depreciating the explicit claims that come from Truth. It's probably why you have some of these philosopher folk get all Kantian with all these things. We observe triangles, inches and so forth even if we don't have the perfect triangle or inch or so forth: it's our idea being impressed upon what we observe but the real thing is some where else, untouched. But I wonder to what? Is that real idea tied to anything but an infinite multiverse where everything that can happen does happen? Okay, I'm sorry. Your post made me think and draw lines and then ramble. I blame you. Wait, you got banned? |
|
|
|
| ReyReynoso | Apr 30 2012, 06:51 AM Post #7 |
|
AKA Navin Johnson
|
More. I don't think this necessitates that scientists are following a faulty path. I just think that there's a major X-factor not being accounted for because the way we currently do science is by considering things without the X-factor. It's like being handed a grid and considering "how would this happen?" and then stating "this IS the way this grid happened." |
|
|
|
| Damian | May 1 2012, 03:30 AM Post #8 |
|
Wears Skinny Jeans
|
Banning - I got ticked off back in the Fall and deleted myself from Theologica. After I calmed down, about two weeks later, I tried to sign back up. I wasn't allowed. Now I know I can be obnoxious, but lets be honest here... Marv and Char are waaaaaay more condescending than me ;-) Maybe I'll try again... |
|
|
|
| Damian | May 1 2012, 07:33 AM Post #9 |
|
Wears Skinny Jeans
|
I signed up again and was just approved back. So the banning has been lifted. |
|
|
|
| Marv | May 1 2012, 08:06 AM Post #10 |
THE EVIL ONE
|
I doubt it was a case of not allowing you back before. More likely mod inattentiveness. Or did you get some kind of message? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Blogs · Next Topic » |
9:57 PM Jun 19