"Religion has at one time or another been thought to fill four main roles in human life: explanation, exhortation, consolation and inspiration,” writes Mr Dawkins, enumerating the four targets of his logical firepower. He shows that religion does not provide a satisfactory explanation for anything. Here his arguments are well-rehearsed and finely honed from decades of combating American fundamentalists. This section will appeal to anyone who ever wondered, if God created the universe, who created God? As for exhortation, he argues that in practice, religion is not a legitimate source of morality. If it were, Jews would still be executing those who work on the Sabbath. Where morality actually does come from is less clear. Mr Dawkins suggests the source is a combination of genetic instincts, which evolved because morals allowed humans to benefit more efficiently from co-operation, and a cultural Zeitgeist. For some people consolation and inspiration are genuine benefits of religion, as even Mr Dawkins will allow. But these functions can and should be fulfilled by other means, he says. This is the most problematic part of his thesis. In his case contemplation of the natural world does the job; his final chapter is an ode to the perspective-altering discoveries of modern physics. But only a minority will find as much consolation in quantum physics as in the prospect of reuniting with their dearly departed in heaven."

Interesting... (as is also his idea of how religion can be 'removed' from the world...)

While I certainly would not claim to defend "religion" in general, I am extremely interested in the rationality and viability of belief in Jesus Christ as the Creator, Savior, and Lord God (which Dawkins would probably call 'the religion of Christianity').  So here is my reply.

Belief/trust in Jesus Christ is not primarily about "explanation, exhortation, consolation, or inspiration", although it certainly does provide an excellent basis for each of them.   Instead, the primary concern of a follower of Jesus Christ must be truth.  

We must ask not "what would provide me with the best sermon" but "what is the actual state of affairs in the universe and in my life?"  "What is the truth about my soul? (if I have a soul)"  

Is it true that God exists, that He has created me, that I am responsible to Him for my actions?  Is it true that although I have messed up my life beyond any hope of eternal happiness, that God wrapped Himself in flesh and came to the earth for the express purpose of dying in my place?

Dawkins mention of "explanation" is closest to what I'm saying, though I bet I could summarize what he was referring to in a single sentence - "a long time ago people didn't know what caused lightning and rain, so they invented gods to pray to, but now we know that lightning and rain are caused by physical laws, so we don't need gods anymore... we're grown-up now."  Actually, contra Dawkins, some events are still "explained" better under the theistic hypothesis than the naturalistic hypothesis, like Creation and the Resurrection.  And the theistic/possibility-of-miracles hypothesis doesn't impinge upon real operational science at all.

Dawkins, eloquent and educated though he is, not only comes to the wrong conclusions, but even deeper - he is asking the wrong questions.

Here is a interesting speech by famous author Michael Crichton, entitled "Aliens cause global warming."  If you're interested in science, politics, postmodernism or creationism, you will probably enjoy taking a few minutes to read through his speech.  He speaks from the perspective of a science-loving (and "pseudoscience-hating") modernist, pleading for objectivity in current and future scientific research.  And of course, scientific objectivity is a very good thing.  But it may be elusive... Crichton sees the handwriting on the wall - that postmodernism is gradually eliminating the objectivity of science (and even the practice of scientific research itself).

C. S. Lewis put it well... (M. D. Aeschliman, 'C. S. Lewis on Mere Science', 1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18) ---
"Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared - the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature [i.e. quantum theory], and the surrender of the claim that science is true [i.e. postmodernism]. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age."

So what ought we Christians to do?

I suggest - follow God in full trust without "worrying about tomorrow", and revel in science / knowledge / learning more about God's creation, worshipping the Creator...

Today's post will probably be multi-part (and I may be working on it for several days), because I have so much on my mind...     There's more too, but this is the stuff that's reached the "publish-to-the-world" threshold. 

Here's an index:

1. Announcement of Erhman/Craig debate

2. Comments on science and the Bible and worldviewish stuff

3. Words of "How Firm A Foundation" with scripture references

4. Personal musings on topic TBA.  (Actually I wanted to write about something earlier today or yesterday, but I can't remember now what it was.  Hopefully I'll remember soon. 

 

 

 

1. The transcript of the debate between Bart Ehrman and Bill Craig (March 2006) about the Resurrection is now available, at http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrdebate.htm .  If you have some time, it's well worth reading through and thinking about.  Both men had some pretty impressive arguments.  Craig took somewhat of a modernist approach, presenting the historical and literary evidence supporting the Resurrection.  Ehrman seemed to scatter his arguments more widely, without relying too much on any one argument.  His chief arguments were the (postmodern/modern hybrid) impossibility of ever detecting any "supernatural" involvement in the world ("by definition" and the pluralistic argument - "how can you ever know or be sure that what you grew up believing is actually the truth, if all these other people around the world grew up believing something different, and you claim that they're all wrong?"

 

2. Here's an interesting picture, excerpted from the latest Journal of Creation...

 

This is challenging, and reminiscent of my earlier post on epistemology ( http://www.xanga.com/tim223/450074582/item.html ).   I think I tentatively agree with what the diagram is saying.

I was thinking about this, and it struck me that we can go FARTHER, and abstract this to a more general case - the heart of epistemology itself.  Science is a subset of "empirical/sense data", and "Bible"can be construed as an "authoritative repository/model".  So we have models in our minds of how the world works and "is", and as we encounter various empirical data, we modify our models so as to asymptotically approach the Truth.  (At least, that is a correspondance-theory of truth and epistemology (as I understand it), and I think it is the Christian theory also (and closely related to the modernist view)).

But, obviously, we do not modify our model based on ALL data that we encounter!  For example, if I'm walking down a snowy street one Christmas Eve and I suddenly see a guy in a red suit and big white beard waddling down the sidewalk, I do not necessarily immediately modify my disbelief in Santa Claus into belief in Santa Claus - even though I am seeing "empirical evidence" right before my very eyes.  Rather, the strength of my model of the world (i.e. my belief that Santa is just a myth) causes me to reinterpret what my eyes are seeing, so that I immediately think to myself "Oh, that must be a man pretending to be Santa Claus."

So here's where it gets interesting.  Which is the true power, the true ruler-of-my-beliefs?   Am I bound into the mind-patterns created for me by my society and culture, unable to break free of the worldview-glasses that I have been indoctrinated into, shackled by the myths and beliefs that I have always held?  (This is what the postmoderns claim, despite the fact that it refutes their own words.)   Or on the other hand, am I free of biases and preconceptions, able to view "...the facts, maam, just the facts, please..." with my white lab coat and spectacles, and viewing the world "as it really is", based on the "unbiased" foundation of science and empirical evidence?  (This is what many modernists today believe, unaware that the philosophical underpinnings of their view in its purest form ("Logical Positivism") was overwhelmingly found to be bankrupt in the 1960's.)   If the Modernists are right, I may genuinely seek truth... if the Postmodernists are right, there is no "truth", there is only power.  Yet even in the Modernist approach, when they finally find that "truth" which they seek in their science labs, and sit down to ponder its implications, they actually reach the same conclusion as the Postmodernists!...namely that humans are merely soulless biological machines... cogs in the universe... deterministically going about their tasks, each molecule doing its thing and creating its biological illusions (such as free will ...  input and output, input and output, to all eternity.  The conclusion for the honest Modernist?  "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."

Now let's revisit the Christian camp... enter another set of players - the Presuppositionalists!   They seem basically to be an outcropping of postmodernism within Christianity (within the reformed protestant tradition), claiming that we must "presuppose" that the Bible is true, and then reason from it to the rest of our beliefs.   (The earlier camp (more akin to the Modernists) would be the "Evidentialists" like Josh McDowell - "Evidence that demands a verdict", etc).   It is my view that both the Presuppositionalists and the Evidentialists have some good points, but that they're both somewhat incorrect.  But since this "brief comment section" is getting way too long, I'll refrain from belaboring my reasons why I believe this...   There's a nice brief point on this here ( http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wvmore.html ), and it does seem that there is something to be said for both the problem of bias AND the need for some real-world point-of-reference or "grounding" for one's belief structure...    I appreciate both the diligent 1Peter3:15 work of McDowell "evidence-types" AND also the insistence by Van Till-types that we ought to preach the word of God boldly and unashamedly, realizing that it is GOD who "opens people's hearts to believe". (Acts 16:14)

So basically... although our sight may be "colored" by the glasses of our particular beliefs, it is possible (through God's sovereign intervention) that we might see something through those colored glasses that might startle us and convince us that we need new glasses.

 

 

3. Here are the words to "How Firm A Foundation"... I was encouraged tonight by reading these words... I looked up some of the scriptures that came to mind from these words... can any of you provide more scriptures for these?  (or, of course, if something here is UN-scriptural, please mention that too!)
How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!
What more can He say than to you He hath said,
You, who unto Jesus for refuge have fled?

Hebrews 6:17-19
In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge would have strong encouragement in laying hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil...
In every condition, in sickness, in health;
In poverty’s vale, or abounding in wealth;
At home and abroad, on the land, on the sea,
As thy days may demand, shall thy strength ever be.

Deut. 33:25 (blessing to Asher)
Thy shoes shall be iron and brass; and as thy days, so shall thy strength be.

Phil. 4:12-13
I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.
Fear not, I am with thee, O be not dismayed,
For I am thy God and will still give thee aid;
I’ll strengthen and help thee, and cause thee to stand
Upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand.

Isaiah 41:10
Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee;
Yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.
When through the deep waters I call thee to go,
The rivers of woe shall not thee overflow;
For I will be with thee, thy troubles to bless,
And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress.

Isaiah 43:2a
When you pass through the waters, I will be with you;
And through the rivers, they will not overflow you...
When through fiery trials thy pathways shall lie,
My grace, all sufficient, shall be thy supply;
The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design
Thy dross to consume, and thy gold to refine.

Isaiah 43:2b
When you walk through the fire, you will not be scorched,
Nor will the flame burn you.

2 Cor. 12:9a
And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness."

Jeremiah 9:7,Daniel 11:35,Malachi 3:3, Zechariah 13:9-
"And I will bring the third part through the fire,Refine them as silver is refined,And test them as gold is tested They will call on My name,And I will answer them;I will say, 'They are My people,'And they will say, 'The LORD is my God.'"

Isaiah 1:25-26
I will also turn My hand against you,
And will smelt away your dross as with lye
And will remove all your alloy.
Then I will restore your judges as at the first,
And your counselors as at the beginning;
After that you will be called the city of righteousness,
A faithful city.

 

Even down to old age all My people shall prove
My sovereign, eternal, unchangeable love;
And when hoary hairs shall their temples adorn,
Like lambs they shall still in My bosom be borne.

Isaiah 46:3-4
Listen to Me, O house of Jacob,
And all the remnant of the house of Israel,
You who have been borne by Me from birth
And have been carried from the womb;
Even to your old age I will be the same,
And even to your graying years I will bear you!
I have done it, and I will carry you;
And I will bear you and I will deliver you.

 

The soul that on Jesus has leaned for repose,
I will not, I will not desert to its foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake.

Exodus 33:14
And He said, "My presence shall go with you, and I will give you rest."

Matthew 11:28
"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest."

Deuteronomy 31:8
"The LORD is the one who goes ahead of you;
He will be with you.
He will not fail you or forsake you.
Do not fear or be dismayed."

Isaiah 41:17
"The afflicted and needy are seeking water, but there is none,
And their tongue is parched with thirst;
I, the LORD, will answer them Myself,
As the God of Israel, I will not forsake them.

Hebrews 13:5
Make sure that your character is free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, "I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you"...
... and it is worth noting that the Greek of that last passage reads as follows: (notice that "Ou" and "me" are two different 'negation' words in Greek, and unlike English, repetition of such words increased the sentiment (instead of using an equivalent to the English "very", they would repeat such words as necessary (cf also Isaiah 6:3 for similar Hebrew usage!!))

[edit 7-13-2006]  I may have been incorrect about the Greek comparatives/superlatives... I know that this repetition-usage is the case in Hebrew, but I am not sure if it is the same way in Greek.  However, the passage is a quote from Deuteronomy 31, which was written in Hebrew (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0531.htm , cf. http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/05_031.htm), and the author of Hebrews (Paul, Barnabas, or Apollos) knew Hebrew and chose to translate it this way, so it seems that at least in this verse, the 'extra repetitions' do indeed denote extra force. [/edit]

 

...so, literally (the quote in the second half of the verse),

"Not not you shall I desert,
Nor not not you shall I forsake."

Hebrews 13:5b-6, (Psalm 118:6)
"... for He Himself has said, "I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you," so that we confidently say,
"The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?""

 

Also, related to my recent post about naturalism, check out this article...

Excerpt:   Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy,...described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a “kind of paganism” because it harked back to the days of “nature gods” who were responsible for natural events.

Again, the controversy is whether the God of the Bible is a deistic, "hands-off" God, or if He ever actually gets physically involved in His universe...

 

 

Here's an interesting article about the woman scientist who discovered soft extant dinosaur tissue in "68-million-year-old" dinosaur bones.

Here's an excerpt of the part that especially caught my eye:

"...Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”"

First, it's interesting to note her a priori philosophical bias, which is certainly "methodological naturalism" and probably steps over the boundary of "philosophical naturalism" too...  Her view is that God absolutely CANNOT work in time and space in scientifically detectable ways... in other words, God could be good, and loving, and kind, and powerful, and whatever else, but He most certainly CANNOT interact with the world He has created in ways that could be detected by humans - God absolutely CANNOT do miracles.   If He could (so reasons the phobia), then people might actually believe in God based on evidence rather than blind faith. (Oh!  Horrors!)

According to Schweitzer, "invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science."

Oh, well excuse me.  Forgive me for asking, but who makes up these "rules" again?  Shame on Newton, Kepler, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Maxwell, Stokes, Pasteur, and Kelvin for indulging in such flagrant scientific naughtiness.

Schweitzer is not alone in her complaint, of course.  Michael Ruse writes: "Even if Scientific Creationism were totally successful in making its case as science, it would not yield a 'scientific' explanation of origins. The Creationists believe that the world started miraculously. But miracles lie outside of science, which by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable, that which is governed by law." (Darwinism Defended, p. 182).

Similarly Richard Lewontin writes: "Either the world of phenomena is a consequence of the regular operation of repeatable causes and their repeatable effects, operating roughly along the lines of known physical law, or else at every instant all physical regularities may be ruptured and a totally unforeseeable set of events may occur.... We can not live simultaneously in a world of natural causation and of miracles, for if one miracle can occur, there is no limit." (Scientists Confront Creationism, New York: Norton, 1983, p. 26)
...and also...
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

Unnerving indeed, in all honesty.  It is non-trivial and (potentially life-altering) to find (paraphrasing C.S.Lewis) "a real, live God in our midst".

Now granted, methodological naturalism can be useful, in finding out "the way things usually work" (also called "nomological" investigation - the study of how things generally proceed, based on the "laws" (Greek 'nomos') that govern the universe).   But as soon as it morphs into an 'Absolute Principle', the openminded curiosity which is the chief treasure of the scientific endeavor is discarded.  As soon as I state that "I've never observed a miracle in my laboratory, therefore God has never done (and can never do) a miracle" or even worse, "I refuse to believe in miracles because that might allow [Lewontin's proverbial] Divine foot in the door", I have unjustifiably closed and locked my mind.   In agreement with William James, and contra W.K.Clifford, "unlimited skepticism" can sometimes be a hindrance to finding the truth...

Schweitzer is almost technically correct when she disparages "invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena", in the sense of invoking the "miraculous" hand of God in suspending the laws that He has ordained that generally govern the physical world.  But she neglects to mention that the whole controversy is about exactly that point - what phenomena are natural and what are not?  ...and is it possible that some phenomena truly CANNOT be explained naturalistically?  (the origin of matter, the origin of DNA, Christ walking on water, Christ's Resurrection)?

When I throw a basketball up in the air and it falls back to the ground, there is no need to infer a "miracle" - there is not necessarily any suspension of the normal processes of gravity that God has established.   But must we assume that God is bound by these laws that He created?  That He can never suspend them if He so chooses?

In my humble opinion, we ought not to make such "metaphysically gratuitous" assumptions.  As Steven Meyer writes (with my insertion), "Of course intelligent design [and creationism] is not wholly naturalistic, but why does that make it unscientific? What noncircular reason can be given for this assertion? What independent criterion of method demonstrates the inferior scientific status of a nonnaturalistic explanation?" 

By contrast, the Kansas folks got it right:

Older 2001 Definition: "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world
around us."

Revised 2005 Definition: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses
observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument
and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural
phenomena."
"More adequate", "more accurate", "closer to the truth about the way the world works"... This is the true and noble goal of science... the aim of that worthy perennial nomological enterprise... that "glory of kings."

 

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...

 "...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...)

AHHHHHHH!

"This is a rough list of topics we
covered in this section and hence are fair game for exam. Some
students find this a helpful study aid.

Study Items for  Exam 2

DNA double helix structure and base
pairing

Nucleotide structure – 3 components

DNA replication – mechanism, leading
and lagging strand

Gene structure, transcription

Reading genetic code

Genotype vs phenotype

Types of mutations – insertion,
deletion, base change

Introns vs exons

Transcription factors – role, types

Understand lac and trp operons

pET inducible expression system

Enhancer elements, activators,
eukaryotic regulation

Other ways to regulate protein levels
besides transcription

DNA sequencing, dideoxy NTP (describe
sequencing reaction)

Steps for sequencing a genome

Isolating cDNA (describe steps to
making cDNA library)

Site directed mutagenesis – how do
you do it

Restriction enzymes and ligating DNA

Plasmids

Inducible promotors for expressing
genes in bacteria

Homologous recombination

Making, using, optimizing DNA
microarrays

What you learn from microarrays

Northern blot

RT PCR – how it works, what you learn

Molecular beacons

SNPs – importance, detecting

PCR to amplify DNA sequence – how it
works

Basics of DNA fingerprinting

mRNA processing

Gene knockins and knockouts – how to
you make them

Stem cells

Tissue specific knock outs

Ribosome fundamentals

tRNA structure and function

Protein translation cycle

Basic mechanism of protein targeting

Protein folding and misfolding"

God, thanks for making such an awesome and complex world... now please help me understand it...... before Thursday night......

Fascinating article in yesterday's The Times (London).  (Thanks, Joel, for informing me about this through your xanga!) -

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

It is technically not an official declaration from the Vatican, but rather a teaching document put out by high-ranking bishops.  Some people are already calling for the Vatican to clarify.  Here are some excerpts:

 The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

 

My response -

How sad this is.  Exactly as predicted in the Bible (John 5:47, Matt. 24:12, Jer. 6:19, Mark 8:38, 2 Tim. 4:3, Prov. 30:5-6, Jer. 23:28-29, Gen. 3:1), but how sad nonetheless.

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 )