Ok, more philosophical/epistemological musings...      Sorry for those of you my esteemed readers who would rather read little tidbits and anecdotes...     But I'll come back to those in a few days, perhaps.

These thoughts were prompted by some discussions from this past week, although they've been percolating for quite a while.  My views on the inspiration/inerrancy of the Scriptures have also been undergoing some modification over the last few months.  I'll have to explain that some time.

For now, enjoy, and although I didn't write it in a very clear way, please feel free to wade in and suggest any of your thoughts, critiques, and suggestions for improvement.

============================

The topic is "science and the Bible", and the question is how to proceed if they seem to contradict.  (It might be helpful to merge these thoughts with Moreland's "four views" from our readings).  Working on the following assumptions:

1. The Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God to mankind.

2. Observational/nomological science connects us to the real world that God created, so that by performing experiments and observing the results, we (have the potential ability to) view/interact-with a real physical world, not an "illusion" - i.e. our observations "correspond" with a reality that exists outside of any human observers.

3. All of our interpretations of the Bible are fallible and must pass through multiple "layers" of cultural/environmental influences.  Examples of the layers are:
- between the original autographs and the extant manuscripts and codices
- between the extant codices' symbolic semantic Hebrew/Greek message and our own individual understandings (i.e. "Do I understand the language this manuscript is written in?")
- between the Hebrew/Greek and the English, if we don't know Hebrew/Greek (i.e. the issue of "translations")
- the broad-context questions - e.g. "I know this says "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth...", but does the word "days" in context refer to literal 24-hour days, or unspecified periods of time?"

4. All of our interpretations of scientific experiments are fallible and must pass through multiple "layers" of cultural/environmental influences.  Examples of the layers are:
- if I read about an experiment (e.g. Michelson-Morley) in a textbook rather than performing it myself (with direct sensory observation), I have the same difficulties of textual interpretation as above with Scripture:
- "do I understand the language of this scientific report?"
- "am I grasping the meaning of what the author wrote in broad context?"  (e.g. the word "evolution" has many meanings)
- if I perform the experiment myself, am I 'sure' that I am not performing the experiment incorrectly, or that I am not failing to account for all possible confounding factors? (i.e. experimental error, sensor noise, other confounding factors)
- whether another or I perform the experiment, are our assumptions valid?  (e.g. uniformitarian "annual layer" assumptions for varves, ice cores, tree rings, etc)
- whether another or I perform the experiment, is my model valid to the necessary precision? (e.g. relativity and quantum mechanics drastically revised the physical models of the 19th century, allowing greater prediction precision than before)

5. Both our scientific and our Scriptural understandings can be supposed to be "asymptotically convergent", meaning that although they can be "wrong" to various precisions, increasing time and study will bring our beliefs closer to "The Truth".
- e.g. for scientific theories, Einstein's theory of gravity "refined" Newton's, rather than "contradicting" Newton's.  Yet even Einstein's may not be the "exact" way that gravity is described.
- e.g. for scriptural interpretations...

6. It is desirable to hold to a set of beliefs that is as consistent as possible.  If possible, the set of beliefs that I hold should have no contradictions at all, when all qualifiers and caveats are accounted for.

7. It is desirable to hold to a set of beliefs that is as "livable" as possible.  This should "include" my own innate sense of what is morally desirable (while recognizing that my own innate conscience may possibly need revision from time to time).
- For example, if my conscience prompts me to treat other people with love and respect, even if they hold wrong beliefs (1 Peter 3:15), then a system of beliefs (such as Christianity) which shows the propriety and rationality (with respect to "the real world", both physical and spiritual) of such love and respect would be preferred over a system of beliefs which provided no rationale for such love of others (and certainly over a system which, for example, provided a rationale for destroying others so that my own 'fitter' genes would predominate/propagate).
- Yet, my conscience is not the end-all, since it might be corrupted.  For example, if I as a white Southern slave-owner of 150 years ago was confronted with compelling evidence from a belief system (such as Biblical Christianity) which I had strong reason to believe was true, I should be able to modify my innate sense of what was right and proper (e.g. from "The negro ought to know his place" to "The negro is my brother as a human, he has just as much dignity as an imagebearer-of-God as I do, and he needs to hear about God's salvation and kingdom just as much as I also need to hear").

 
Holding to these principles and assumptions, we might try to come up with a statement that we all agree upon...  (though I am not too optimistic about this...   such as:
"We agree that it is possible for scripture to 'trump' science, in the sense that:
- After all available scientific and scriptural evidence has been duly considered, it is possible for me:
- to experience and hold to a belief that my particular interpretation of a Scripture passage is directly contradictory to my particular interpretation of observational-scientific experiments and historical-reconstructions-supported-by-observational-scientific-experimental-evidence, and further:
- to experience "sufficient confidence" in a belief that my Scripture-based-belief indicates that the Scientific-theory is wrong, and further:
- to be "correct", "right", "legitimate," and "epistemically-justified," in my subsequent repudiation of a scientific theory based on an interpretation of Scripture that I am sufficiently confident is the correct interpretation (to the requisite level of asymptotic accuracy)."
In shorter words:

"We agree that sometimes it is proper to disbelieve in a scientific theory because of what Scripture says."

Or:

"It is possible to be so convinced that one understands what the Scriptures are saying/implying in a certain passage, that one believes in that interpretation in spite of the fact that scientific theories and evidence contradict that interpretation... and it is possible to be epistemically justified in so doing."

The critique might then arise: how does one know, to start out with, that the scriptures are "correct"/"infallible" in this scientific sense?  If it contradicts the scientific evidence we see around us, why shouldn't we throw it out?

In reply I would ask - "how does one know that ANY repository of truth is "correct" (let's temporarily postpone discussion of "infallible") in a scientific sense?"   And, "if a piece of evidence contradicts my current scientific understanding, do I throw out the "new piece of evidence" as "spurious," or do I revise (possibly drastically) my scientific beliefs to conform to the one new piece of "evidence?"

The basic problem is that theories never make quantum/qualitative jumps to the epistemological status of "scientific fact"... they instead gradually/quantitatively increase in the estimation of the scientific community, and sometimes for reasons other than scientific reasons.   (Cf. Popper, Kuhn, Ruse)

Yet the question of empirical corroboration of scripture-texts is important.  If the Bible consistently claimed things that were demonstrably false today (such as that people rise from the dead all the time, or that the earth is flat and is supported on the back of a giant tortise), we would be wise to reconsider our belief in it.

On the other hand, if the Bible claims things that are historically reasonable (such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead ca. 2000 years ago in Judea) and subsequently provides adequate ("non-circularly-reasoned") grounds for its own inerrancy, then it might conceivably be justifiable to trust its account of historical events which are accessible only in a limited way by modern scientific reconstructions...

Ok - for today's post, two quick interesting articles, and a hilarious and relevant article by good old Clive Staples Lewis.

Article 1 - Were you aware that February 12th is being labelled as "Evolution Sunday" by 10000 american clergy? They hope to use it as a platform to teach (contra Genesis 1-11) that evolution and creation really are not opposed.

Article 2 - This is just a fun read about an unfortunate incident that occurred last month to the prime minister of Canada - "Is that a holiday wreath or a christmas wreath, Paul?" "Ummm... It's a $240 wreath." Yeah, ok.

And finally, a pleasant dose from that incomparable imaginatician, C.S. Lewis, in his essay "Xmas and Christmas: A Lost Chapter from Herodotus."

And beyond this there lies in the ocean, turned towards the west and north, the island of Niatirb which Hecataeus indeed declares to be the same size and shape as Sicily, but it is larger, though in calling it triangular a man would not miss the mark. It is densely inhabited by men who wear clothes not very different from the other barbarians who occupy the north western parts of Europe though they do not agree with them in language. These islanders, surpassing all the men of whom we know in patience and endurance, use the following customs.

In the middle of winter when fogs and rains most abound they have a great festival which they call Exmas and for fifty days they prepare for it in the fashion I shall describe. First of all, every citizen is obliged to send to each of his friends and relations a square piece of hard paper stamped with a picture, which in their speech is called an Exmas-card. But the pictures represent birds sitting on branches, or trees with a dark green prickly leaf, or else men in such garments as the Niatirbians believe that their ancestors wore two hundred years ago riding in coaches such as their ancestors used, or houses with snow on their roofs. And the Niatirbians are unwilling to say what these pictures have to do with the festival; guarding (as I suppose) some sacred mystery. And because all men must send these cards the marketplace is filled with the crowd of those buying them, so that there is great labour and weariness.

But having bought as many as they suppose to be sufficient, they return to their houses and find there the like cards which others have sent to them. And when they find cards from any to whom they also have sent cards, they throw them away and give thanks to the gods that this labour at least is over for another year. But when they find cards from any to whom they have not sent, then they beat their breasts and wail and utter curses against the sender; and, having sufficiently lamented their misfortune, they put on their boots again and go out into the fog and rain and buy a card for him also. And let this account suffice about Exmas-cards.

They also send gifts to one another, suffering the same things about the gifts as about the cards, or even worse. For every citizen has to guess the value of the gift which every friend will send to him so that he may send one of equal value, whether he can afford it or not. And they buy as gifts for one another such things as no man ever bought for himself. For the sellers, understanding the custom, put forth all kinds of trumpery, and whatever, being useless and ridiculous, they have been unable to sell throughout the year they now sell as an Exmas gift. And though the Niatirbians profess themselves to lack sufficient necessary things, such as metal, leather, wood and paper, yet an incredible quantity of these things is wasted every year, being made into the gifts.

But during these fifty days the oldest, poorest, and most miserable of the citizens put on false beards and red robes and walk about the market-place; being disguised (in my opinion) as Cronos. And the sellers of gifts no less than the purchaser's become pale and weary, because of the crowds and the fog, so that any man who came into a Niatirbian city at this season would think some great public calamity had fallen on Niatirb. This fifty days of preparation is called in their barbarian speech the Exmas Rush.

But when the day of the festival comes, then most of the citizens, being exhausted with the Rush, lie in bed till noon. But in the evening they eat five times as much supper as on other days and, crowning themselves with crowns of paper, they become intoxicated. And on the day after Exmas they are very grave, being internally disordered by the supper and the drinking and reckoning how much they have spent on gifts and on the wine. For wine is so dear among the Niatirbians that a man must swallow the worth of a talent before he is well intoxicated.

Such, then, are their customs about the Exmas. But the few among the Niatirbians have also a festival, separate and to themselves, called Crissmas, which is on the same day as Exmas. And those who keep Crissmas, doing the opposite to the majority of the Niatirbians, rise early on that day with shining faces and go before sunrise to certain temples where they partake of a sacred feast. And in most of the temples they set out images of a fair woman with a new-born Child on her knees and certain animals and shepherds adoring the Child. (The reason of these images is given in a certain sacred story which I know but do not repeat.)

But I myself conversed with a priest in one of these temples and asked him why they kept Crissmas on the same day as Exmas; for it appeared to me inconvenient. But the priest replied, "It is not lawful, O stranger, for us to change the date of Chrissmas, but would that Zeus would put it into the minds of the Niatirbians to keep Exmas at some other time or not to keep it at all. For Exmas and the Rush distract the minds even of the few from sacred things. And we indeed are glad that men should make merry at Crissmas; but in Exmas there is no merriment left." And when I asked him why they endured the Rush, he replied, "It is, O Stranger, a racket"; using (as I suppose) the words of some oracle and speaking unintelligibly to me (for a racket is an instrument which the barbarians use in a game called tennis).

But what Hecataeus says, that Exmas and Crissmas are the same, is not credible. For first, the pictures which are stamped on the Exmas-cards have nothing to do with the sacred story which the priests tell about Crissmas. And secondly, the most part of the Niatirbians, not believing the religion of the few, nevertheless send the gifts and cards and participate in the Rush and drink, wearing paper caps. But it is not likely that men, even being barbarians, should suffer so many and great things in honour of a god they do not believe in. And now, enough about Niatirb.

 "...I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages, but from sense-experiences and necessary demonstrations..."

This is an excerpt from Galileo's 1632 letter to the Roman Catholic Church explaining why he would not (at that time) recant from his heliocentric view of the solar system. If you have time, read the whole letter... it's extremely fascinating.  The complete article can be found at http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/galileo/galileo.html

I may get time later to post my thoughts about this... here are a few quick thoughts- (1) I think he's right that we ought not to be dogmatic about things that the Bible is not clear about, (2) I think we OUGHT to unflinchingly teach what the Bible CLEARLY teaches about things, even if it's in areas other than "salvation", such as "scientific" or "historical" areas (i.e. I think Galileo is wrong about this), (3) it would be wise also to understand the difference between historical "scientific" reconstructions versus observational/experimental science, and understand the key role of testimony in the former (i.e. do the planets orbit the earth - experimental science... testimony is irrelevant; how long were the first six days of creation - reconstructional science...testimony is extremely relevant), (4) and finally, when one speaks of "beginning", if one means finding an appropriate epistemological basis for one's beliefs, I think it is legitimate to start from the most incontrovertible evidence we know - sense experience/etc.  This allows us to ascertain not only WHETHER or not to believe in Scripture, but also WHICH Scripture to believe in... (today's culture has more 'live options' than Galileo's culture did).  Once the Bible is believed as a repository of truth, it may at times supercede other moments of contrary sense-data... this is a key aspect of "faith."    Yet "blind faith" is irresponsible... what we should have is justified faith - faith based on good solid reasons.

What do you think?  (especially about his whole letter, but also about the brief excerpt that I quoted...)

Ok, this just raises the bar of all funniness to a new level...  (especially the last few paragraphs)

Oh, what I wouldn't give to see this film made... in fact, many films like it made... in fact, hmmm...  do I sense a filmmaking career stretching out in front of me? 

http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?p=762&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more762

Incredible quote... from the famous John Scopes... (80th anniversary of his trial coming up this September...)

“If you limit a teacher to only one side of anything, the whole country will eventually have only one thought. … I believe in teaching every aspect of every problem or theory.”

( from http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/240#more-240 )

And finally - yet another utterly fascinating issue / article-to-examine:

(taken from  http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005c/072905/072905h.php , with my comments below)

A recent article by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn in The New York Times, asserting that “unguided, unplanned” evolution is inconsistent with Catholic faith, should be read with caution warn a number of Catholic scientists and theologians, including the head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Most of the experts interviewed said the article can offer a useful alert if taken at a theological level. Evolution, they point out, has sometimes been invoked to justify atheism, as well as immanentism (that God is a vague life force) or deism (that God set the universe in motion and has nothing more to do with it).

To the extent Schönborn’s point is that Christianity cannot accept a universe without an active, personal God, they say, there’s little to dispute.

If taken as a scientific statement, on the other hand, these observers warn that Schönborn’s insistence on seeing “purpose and design” in nature could steer the Catholic church towards creationism in the bitter cultural debate, especially prominent in the United States, between evolution and intelligent design. Doing so, they say, risks overstepping the bounds of the church’s competence, as well as reopening a divide between science and the Catholic church that had seemed largely overcome.

The first and most important facet of this question is the nature of Truth.  Notice how the article said "...if taken at a theological level"  and compared that to "...if taken as a scientific statement."

This is pure postmodern propaganda - the claim that "religious truth" is on a "separate level" from "scientific truth", and that they can contradict each other without much problem at all.  Why are such contradictions not a problem, according to postmodernists?  Well, "religious truth" is merely a cultural paradigm, and should not be "dogmatically" foisted upon others in the world who hold different paradigms anyway, so if "religious truth" ever comes into conflict with real hard science, throw it out the window.

Needless to say, this sentiment is itself "a belief", and so it defeats itself even as it tries to propagate itself throughout the minds of the whole postmodern world.

Almost every word in the above excerpt deserves a multipage analysis, but let me try to focus on the key phrases.  Notice that the core concern is that of "overstepping the bounds of the church’s competence".

Let me be perfectly frank here.  All this verbiage is dancing around the real issue - whether the Bible is true or not.  When the Bible claims (using high-quality hermeneutics with ancient-cultural/authorial-intent understanding) that the world was created in six days directly by God (with no mention or contradictory scientific details to the "abiogenesis"/"common-ancestor"/"mutation-with-natural-selection" evolutionary hypothesis), the competency called into question is NOT that of "the Church," but that of the Bible, and the Author of the Bible.

(If anyone wants to argue with me over the thesis that "scientific" truth is actually on the exact same plane as so-called "religious" truth, go right ahead... I wish you luck in trying to do so without stultifying your own sentences.)

Finally, notice the complaints about "Schönborn’s insistence... the bitter cultural debate... [and] reopening a divide... that had seemed largely overcome."   Thousands, perhaps millions of loyal Roman Catholics have a problem with Schönborn’s insistence... his stubborn, unyielding insistence that the Bible does in fact contradict the majority conclusions of modern uniformitarian science.  What's the problem?  The problem is the strife... the "bitter debate"... the acrimony... the PAIN that comes along with disagreeing with people.  The PAIN of being a member of a minority community that the majority of scientists (who are the elite - the glorified as priests of secularism) will scoff at and mock.  "You believe in the Bible's account of man's origins?  You must be like the flat-earthers and believers in UFOs... You are pathetic... you are stupid."

And let's be honest, friends... this pain is quite real.  The debate now raging in the RCC since the new pope's ascension is very important, because millions of people are now reevaluating their priorities - whether to believe in the account given by men, or the account given by God.

More on the "fine line" - a brief paper I wrote five years ago in a class.  I came across it again recently and thought others might enjoy reading it or might have some comments.  It's included below.

I also hope to respond to some of the other comments I've gotten recently on previous posts, as soon as Xanga restores them.

here's a fascinating commentary link about a Nature article... and about the eminent scientists who are outraged by it...

And my thoughts:

The Nature magazine seems to be one of the premiere/avantgarde science magazines, as evidenced by the fascinating phenomena that they seem to be somewhat influenced by postmodernism, while still trying to retain their modernist materialist scientific outlook.  They are trying desperately to remain "mainstream scientific" in the naturalistic sense, without offending their increasingly postmodern constituency which believes that science does not have all the answers and that in fact nobody has ANY absolute answers.  Thus Nature recommends "reconciling" science and belief, by relegating belief to "myth" status.  Or perhaps "pleasant myth" or "traditional myth" or "cultural myth" status, if that floats your boat better.

But there are still some die-hard modernists (read the above article), who will not tolerate this mushiness.  I admire them, in a way.  Even though they come to the wrong conclusions, they are seeking the perfect goal - Truth.  They don't tolerate this "religious truth and scientific truth don't have to mesh" platitude.  "They have zeal, but not according to knowledge."

"According to Miller, the Brown University biologist, academia is opposed to explanations that rely on God as a causal agent because they go against the very definition of science: seeking a natural explanation for natural events and phenomenon."

Interesting rhetoric.  Notice especially the word "very" - which instantly attempts to set up a rhetorical/moral/sociocultural gradient by an appeal to an external body of commonly held truth.

What they're saying is the following:

1. If science is defined as strictly "natural" explanation, then by definition creationism (and practically also Intelligent Design) is "non-scientific."  If science is defined more broadly, as in its original meaning (from Latin 'scientia', "to know") of knowledge or general explanation, then of course creationism and ID would be included in "scientific" explanation.

2. If an explanation is not "scientific" by the first definition ("strictly naturalistic"), then it is puerile, weak, reprehensible, unjustifiable, etc.  People are to be disdained and despised if they adopt any explanations that fall outside the realm of naturalistic science.
It should be pretty obvious that #1 is correct (by definition).  However, #2 is actually very weak, and in my opinion, self-defeating.  #2 is actually very similar to logical positivism, which employs the so-called verifiability criterion in an attempt to say that the only sentences that have any meaning are the ones that state facts about things we can see, feel, taste, etc.  The problem is that the verifiability criterion is not itself something that we can see, feel, or taste, so it defeats itself... 

Similarly, the point #2 above is not something that can be proved experimentally, so the statement itself is not scientific, and by its own thesis ought not to be adopted by reasonable people.

The basic problem here is that science cannot reach outside of itself.  Science can certainly say, "This is the best explanation available without appealing to God," but it cannot say, "There is no God" or "This naturalistic explanation is the best one available, period."

It basically comes down to an individual (or societal   choice to say, "I will not believe in anything that I cannot see."

Then the question arises, of course... Why?

Why would one rule out the possibility of intelligent design or special creation by God?  Is there any evidence for the supernatural?  Especially, is there any evidence that makes much better sense if we admit the possibility of the supernatural rather than denying it?

Such as, for example, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead...

Incredible.  Here's an amazing quote from the link, quoted from the Nature article.

"Indeed, it is not the job of a science teacher to meddle with the way their students are brought up or to attack their core personal beliefs. Rather, the goal should be to point to options other than intelligent design for reconciling science and belief."

!!!!!!

As Dilbert would say, "That was just wrong on so many levels."

I hate falsehood (such as, but not limited to, that statement) so much that I can't even think of any word to describe how terrible it is.  Note that I do not hate the people who say such, but the substance of their lies.

It seems these folks are either willfully ignorant (unlikely) or else knowingly and deceitfully trying to hide the fact that "pointing to options other than intelligent design" IS in fact "meddling with the way students are brought up."

Paraphrasing what these folks are saying in a slightly clearer fashion, "We science teachers shouldn't present evolution in a 'dogmatic' and 'confrontational' way... instead we should 'gently', 'gradually', 'subtly' try to brainwash the students toward our naturalistic beliefs."

Note the distinction attempted in the quote between "core personal beliefs" and other beliefs which are presumed to be 'public' or perhaps 'peripheral' - beliefs such as... the origin of life, the meaning of life (or not), the factuality and historicity of those "personal" beliefs...  ! !

HOW DARE a "personal" belief come out of the closet and present itself as actually, historically, scientifically, unilaterally, "TRUE"!  That would constitute narrowminded fundamentalist intolerance in the extreme. . .

(and this too, by Jay Richards, on a lighter note...  There's nothing quite like a good hard dose of satire once in a while...