This entry is a second response to the first part of the annonymous comment posted on the website.
I accept that the scientific method in the lab is fine. But, when you are speaking of God, the origin of the universe, or faith, don't you think that might be exceeding the limits of the scientific method?
What is the place of science in regards to God and origins? This is a great question. I believe that science is only applicable to the universe and all of the nature which it includes. Therefore, if a religion relates that God has interacted with nature in some way, the truth of these claims should stand up to reason. For example if God really interacts with nature via prayer from his followers then evidence should show that prayer does just this. I do believe that reason speaks to the truth of a religion about God but not to the truth of the sheer existence of God.
Science is a way of knowing and that method--when trying to understand nature--requires tools utilizing nature itself. Science would only be within the limits of studying the supernatural in two circumstances-neither of which I think is conceivable--: 1. The supernatural somehow becomes natural or literally interacts with nature in a natural way--this is a conundrum-- and 2. Scienctists have supernatural tools through which to observe the supernatural and that those tools are agreed upon as real by the scientific community as a whole. Number 2 is not a possibility I believe can logically exist or ever will.
I do not know that science has completely grasped as of yet the complete limits or boundaries of this universe's existence, but as of now I believe that the cause of the origin of the universe(s) and the existence of God (in the simplistic sense, not in the Christian, Jewish, or Islamic sense) are not testable by science. They are plenty of fun to think and postulate about but that is all it can be, as I see it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
If I understand you correctly, you believe that the existence of God cannot be proven by science, correct?
When you use the term science, are you referring to one particular vein of science or are you referring to all the sciences 9soft and hard)? Certainly you would agree that Theology is a science? I will grant you that God is not to be found in a test tube, locked away in a freezer, in some musty old laboratory. However, science in and of itself, is only a part of the equation!
You stated in your response: "I believe that science is only applicable to the universe and all of the nature which it includes". So what I understand you to be saying is, that unless God can be verified through some scientific (lab) experiment, then His existance can not be verified? Is this nothing more than empiricism? Did not Jesus say: Blessed are those who believe, and have not seen". It seems to me that the Disciples themselves were affected by Aristotelian philosophy as I believe you are also! Your in good company: Especially Thomas. Yet even he had to admit upon physically touching the wounds of His Lord!
This leads me to my next Q. You mentioned that the interaction between the supernatural and the [N]atural are to you a "conundrum". Is Jesus a conundrum? Did not GOD, who is Spirit, Take on flesh and enter into the natural world? Was he not witnessed to have lived. Is there not religious as well as secular writings that testify to His psychical(natural) existence? I think the problem is that you are divorcing "science" from the Science or knowledge of Theology! (to reason and speak about God).
Are we not Spiritual and natural beings? (Tri or Di-cotomists)
I never denied that Jesus was a human. In fact, my very point was this idea that if Jesus is God and God is intervening and participating in nature then it should stand up to reason.
This is a conundrum simply because it requires something to be fully supernatural and fully natural at the same time. In some ways, yes, I do see Jesus as a conundrum as he has be defined over time by the Catholic church and propagated by the modern day church.
Yes he is claimed to have existed by secular sources (although not in any great detail) but that is it. The other sources do not claim anything else about Jesus in regards to whether or not he was God incarnate.
I don't have an answer to this point of contention for me, and I have declared a moratorium on this issue right now as I sift through what I believe.
I would concur that I believe that I am both a spiritual and physical being, but I will not say that I can prove this to anyone nor will I take it for granted that everyone holds this same view or that it is just true.
Paul,
I guess it would do well to define our use of "science" up front in this blog, so there will be no questions like this one. I assume you are using the term in its classical sense, field using scientific methods (hypothesis, experimentation, publication, etc.)
Theology is not a science as much as it is a field of study.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-logy
I'm not stating that science supplies all the answers. I would like to paraphrase Jesus here, "Give unto science what is rigor and give unto religion what is philosophical and sociological."
I'm pretty sure a lot of folks were upset when the cosmonauts stated that there was no God because they didn't see him while they orbited the Earth. (early-mid 60s) This wasn't a valid experiment to test for the existence or observation of God. In fact, we (America) probably set ourselves up for this when we created a religious furvor a decade earlier during our red-scare days, culminating in the "under God" verbiage being added to the Pledge of Allegiance.
I don't think you have ever doubted the existence or message of Jesus. I'm not sure where anonymous was inferring that.
I agree, defining our terms is of the utmost importance. Also, Jesus does defy our use of logic: A non A for example.
What about the relatinship between the human and divine nature (hypostatic union)? Hard to grasp in a test-tube! but at the very core the rudimentary's of science is the gnosis, the knowledge of God. The objective of science isn't to disprove truth, but is to verify it. I see the conundrum as being one of frustration. Finite scientists trying to verify His Infinite existance, yet in the process, reveal the limits of science.
Question.
Aikman stateed or rather used the term observation. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the type of scirnce (observational) most scientists use? Any alternative generally falls under the guise of Historical Science, correct?
Actually there is a maassive amount written on the Historical Jesus. Most notably, Roman historians, Second Temple Period-Jewish Scribes etc. Most of which attest to his mysterious power and authority. Most Importantly the writers of the Bible Themselves.
However, if we take the words of the like's of Dominic Crossan or the late Robert Funk (West Star Institute-Jesus Seminar), Elaine Pagels, or Bart Eardmahn then we we have already established a presupposition; that is to say that the scriptures contain nothing more than an idealized utopian vision of a man who became a king, and over a few century's became a God. Mythology 101! If that's the case, then why is christianity different then the dead religion of Alexandria: man becomes myth and legend and the hope of something true, something real, is dashed. If this is it why bother?
Once we take the position that the canon of scriptrue is not true, trustworthy, credible, reliable, and propositional, we deny its authority, inerrancy and inspiration. I wonder, if in the lab, we took this same position with proven, reliable, repeatable observations and applied the same scrutiny and methodology of the west star institute; would the historicity of modern science stand?
I believe that evidence of Jesus's existence is sufficient but calling this evidence massive is a gross exaggeration, especially in regards to his mysterious power and authority. The Bible itself, the most comprehensive authority on Jesus and some of his dealings, although having some characteristics of a historical document, is written by the very people who claim to follow Jesus, so it isn't a stretch for someone to believe it might be biased at some levels. This is true even taking into consideration the arguments, such as (for one example) the inclusion of women in many parts of the story, which would have been taboo for the time.
I believe you are exactly right, our divine nature is impossible to characterize or understand in a test tube. As a matter of fact, the only person you can prove it to is yourself. Even if two believers are standing side by side with identical claims to a divine or spiritual nature or experience, neither can prove to the other that it is actually true.
God cannot be verified by an experiment. This is the whole point.
I don't understand how gnosis is the rudiment of science, unless it you are referring to the truth delineated by the scientific process shedding light on how this creation works. In which case one would have to buy into a lot things that are counter to a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Few scientists if any actually create hypotheses about God's existence and use finite tools to test these hypotheses. Can you imagine getting a grant approved by the NSF for this? In fact, most atheists will concede, at least,-albeit painfully--that God cannot be described by the scientific method. Scientists do exist that believe that God does not exist based on the fact that they don't see God but that is actually as irrational as saying that he does exist and therefore is not science.
I see the conundrum existing not for the scientist but for believers who don't know how to decide which science they will want to believe and which they will not want to believe. Today I will use the science that allowed my house to be built, my lights to turn on, and my computer to boot. Tomorrow I will reject that same science when I go to church because I can't believe the earth is old or that Noah couldn't fit all things on the ark.
Instead of analyzing and categorizing the issues of contention between the Bible and the world they mix them all up into a big pot of soup. This creates a situation where people start out talking about the existence of God and end up at the creation story which is a separate issue.
Mark,
Thank you for your thoughts. I would like to just remind you not to get caught up in the moment and find fault in a person spelling for example (this is after all the comment secion, a blog post should stand up to such scrutiny, though). Just stick to the core concept that you are trying to address, which otherwise you did quite well.
I would like to clarify just a couple of thoughts that I have put out there in the past week.
First, I do realize that the followers of Jesus did not write the entire Bible.
Second, I have said that to believe in God requires a starting point of irrational thought. For some this may come off as a negative statement, but my point is not that irrational thought is inherently bad. As a matter of fact we are both rational and irrational beings. In fact sometimes our greatest insights or thoughts are intuitive in nature and may not be able to be explained rationally, at least initially.
One can't logically make the statement that truth can be disproved. If something is true then it cannot also be false at the same time, which would be required for it to be disproved. This is why scientists make hypotheses or educated guesses which are projected to be true but may in fact not be.
Aikman: Thank you for correcting my spelling, I'm sure you had the best of intentions in mind. By the way, Ehrman is also an apostate Presbyterian pastor. His particular view of scripture and his criticism of ancient texts is no clarion bell. His kind have attempted to scale the fortress of scripture before: Arian Sibelian, Monophosite, Cerinthian, Pelagian ...on and on. All of which have failed do to the testimony and the faithfulness of true believers.
Side note: As a professed Mathematician, would you take the same approach in math as you stated:
"Bart's work was a more rigorous approach to the study of the biblical texts than I was willing to undertake and it substantiated a nagging suspicion I'd had about the purebred lineage of the text".
So you’re saying that you believe Mr. Ehrman, yet you have not studied it out for yourself? What sort of method is this? What it reveals is your presupposition. When you say purebred, I assume you’re saying all known variant texts and fragments are exact replications of the originals? Good science would note, that the preponderance of evidence of over 5,200 (Byzantine) V.T., compiled together support the validity of modern translations. Ehrman is a paper mill feeding the masses what they want to eat. Soon enough he'll pass away and another enemy of the cross will sound the call to dinner.
When I used the term "themselves" it was in reference to the original writers. Luke John-Mark Paul, Moses, David etc. I never stated the Modern Translators; i.e., Westscott & Hort, United Bible Society or Nestle Aland. (See 2 Peter 2:21)
There is a difference between us, notably, when I refer to scripture, I believe it is objective and I am subjective.
There is nothing you can say or do that would rock my faith. There is no myth, no legend, and no ill-conceived theory that stands up to the scrutiny of Scripture. Your views are nothing new. Old heresies that come around and fall away. But the word of the Lord endures forever.
Having said this, I look forward to the dialogue.
Elaine Pagels is (not was) a neo Gnostic.
My statement about the objective of science is factual. Science is used to affirm what is true and by way of elimination rule out what is untrue!
Also, anyone who observes and verifies is practicing science. You don't have to be on the pay roll to be a scientist. In the same way anyone who studies Jesus is a Christologist. The question is what kind of Christologist are you?
You say you’re a man of faith, what faith? If you don't follow the teachings of Jesus as you stated, then you are not a man of faith. This phrase is commonly used when referring to Christianity, and by your own testimony; you are not a follower of Christ.
Yes, I do believe that the Transmission of the King James Bible as well as any other Literal equivalency and some Dynamic equivalent texts clearly transmit what Jesus and the rest of what is written as true trustworthy credible and reliable. There are others (Westscott and Hort that I don't care for as well as some eclectic texts. Reason: They use a crude Greek text: The Alexandrian text which is the very text the early Gnostics used to remove the divine references to Christ’s' deity. (Look it up too many to list) I am A Texus Receptus guy. The only thing missing, is hearing the words spoken in their native tongue. The insertion of accents were added at a later date as was the formulation of chapter and verse. Does this take away from the literalness of scripture? Certainly not! Do I believe the LORD's (who is a Spirit) eyes travel to and fro the earth? Yes! This verse speaks to God's omnipotence and transcendence. The Idea: nothing escapes his sight. Conversely, the devil is like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. Do I believe he is a roaring lion? Certainly not! But I do believe his attributes are likened to that. Always on the prowl yet he is limited by time and space.
My question to you in spite of all the dialogue and all the philosophizing: Do you believe that the Lord requires an account of your life and if you were to die tonight would you die with your feet firmly planted in heaven or in the fires of hell?
Not enough time to answer all of your comments.
Posted by Paul for Aikmark
@anonymous,
It would help you understand where I'm coming from if you read one of my first blog entries about the literal interpretation of the Bible.
http://paulperryman.blogspot.com/2007/01/bibles-veracity.html
==============================
"Jesus does defy our use of logic"
I don't think that is a valid statement. Why do you think that Jesus followers be illogical? Beyond reason?
You move too quickly from the introduction of Jesus (a documented historical figure) to the concept of gnosis. While it is true that gnosis is one of the Greecian terms for knowledge and formed the basis for the secular gnostics throughout history, science seek a slightly different form of knowledge -- understanding. Most scientists work in fields whose knowledge do not lead them to a "divine nature". Our earlier blog posts about Intelligent Design have plenty of reasons that legitimate scientists distance any hint of "divine" from their research. I suggest you do a bit more reading in this blog. You've got a bit of catching-up on material.
"The objective of science isn't to disprove truth"
From your writing, I doubt you work in a scientific field or are trained in the scientific method. Scientific research can just as easily disprove an established theory (truth) as support it. The idea is to be honest and objective. Science moved away from simply supporting the church's doctrine when no longer fearing the retribution of the church/state.
Do you know of any scientific experiment that has been performed to verify/refute the existence of God? I'm not aware of any such experiment. This lack of experimentation does not illustrate the limits of science as much as illustrate the relm of religion, belief, theology, faith, etc.
I will certainly agree with you that science has its limits. However, I don't make your mistake of thinking that religion supercedes science. Most current religions have an answer for everything -- God. As you will read from our earlier blog entries, this is 'lazy' and may impune hubris.
Answer. No. See above.
===========================
After your detour, you get back to Jesus. I don't think you will find any disagreement in this blog about the existence of Jesus. The miracles are a matter of faith. Of his influence on history, there is no doubt. I find it interesting that you include a mixture of sources for this paragraph. I've already referenced my prior blog, so I'll say that the scholars and Jewish scribes would be a more reliable source of historical 'fact' than the Bible. That said, I would want to examine Pharosee influence upon the Jewish scribes' works for the same reason I question the objectivity of the monks who transcribed the scriptures in the middle ages.
Why did you capitalize "Themselves"? The capitalization of certain words typically denotes holy references. Are you promoting the writers, translators, transcribers, and editors of the current modern Bible as holy? If so, you've got a lot of justification to do.
===========================
This is an interesting mix of people, most of whom are biblical scholars.
Dominic Crossan and Robert Funk are proponents of the idea that Jesus was an ordinary man of limited education who broke with the rabbinical teachings to establish a cult of tolerance, inclusion, and love. They tried to cut through the chaff and embellishments of the life of Jesus.
Did you mean "Bart Ehrman"? (professor at UNC Chapel Hill)
It would help us if you ran your references through a spell checker. Bart is another biblical scholar and prolific author, whose most famous recent book, Misquoting Jesus", did a comparative study of the ancient manuscripts from which our current Bible is derived. He looked at the changes and differences between the various texts. For instance, Bart looked at dozens of different copies of John, which was written 2-3 generations after the time of Jesus. There is a story in the margin of one copy where Jesus is quoted as "...Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Problem is that Bart didn't find that story in any other copy of a John. And yet, that story is part of our Holy Bible today, accepted as infallable and invariant and literally true. Bart's work was a more rigorous approach to the study of the biblical texts than I was willing to undertake and it substantiated a nagging suspicion I'd had about the purebred lineage of the text.
Here's a question for you. Do you think Jesus talked the way he is quoted in the Gospel of the King James Bible? (feel free to substitute the Bible version you currently use in place of the KJV)
Elaine Pagels was a modern gnostic.
In all cases, you have confused gnosticism and skepticism with nihilism. Lacking the ability to interpret the Bible (too much personal integrity on my part), I have to read the Bible in an effort to derive meaning and supply spiritual comfort.
It doesn't bother me that some people refuse to deify Jesus. I have a problem with it because doing so violates the first or second law of the decalogue, once again depending on your version of the Bible.
If you stick around this blog for a while, you will be able to read my blog about strength of one's faith. If your faith requires you to have a literal interpretation of the Bible, you are free to do so. I have already stated that I do not and have a strong moral obligation to follow Jesus teachings. I will warn you now that you will be exposed to a view of religion that will challenge the foundations of your beliefs. These ideas are not meant to turn you away from God.
A good scientist may make any asumptions entering into an experiment, even those that fly against accepted theories (scientific dogma). As long as they are not blind to their results, offer them for validation, and remain honest, science advances.
I am, by education, a mathematician. When you get beyond the basics, some of the assumptions start to fly out the window. Some of the properties you studied in high school, transitivity and commutativity, disappear in Hilbert Space as you start adding dimensions. Imagine no transitivity or commutativity. Wow! It took me a while to wrap my mind around this, but once I did I survived.
Modernt scientists question Einstein's theories all the time. For that matter, Einstein questioned his own theories. Questioning is the essence of being a scientist.
I'm also a man of faith. There are some questions that science is either incapable or ill equiped to answer. Rather than trying to use the wrong tool for the job, I choose to accept on faith those things that I can not prove. It doesn't make me anti-social, a sociopath, or have narcissistic personality disorder.
Post a Comment