Greetings Randy:
[My apologies for the tardiness of my reply.]
"I am debating this issue because my theology makes certain claims about the
detectability of God's involvement in creation. The strength (or weakness)
of our faith is non-determinative."
No, you are debating this issue because science as it is currently conceived
challenges your theology, especially the part concerning whether God is the
ultimate reality of the universe. As such, the strength of your faith is
very determinative.
How did you establish what my motivations are? And I thought you said
earlier that science makes no claims about the nature of ultimate reality.
"The 'often' may be correct but I've personally met J.P.Moreland and Hugh
Ross and their faith is anything but weak."
People with weak faith can usually put on a good show, but the criterion for
whether a faith is weak is how vigorously one fights one's theological
opponents, not how loudly one professes one's faith. The weaker one's
faith, the greater the compulsion one feels to defend that faith.
And how was this criterion established?
How do you tell the difference between a Henry Morris and a John Calvin, both
of whom
loudly proclaimed their faith? Or would you claim that Morris and Calvin
each had a faith that was equally strong(or weak)?
Exactly; quantum tunneling is such a strong challenge to your theology that
your faith is not strong enough to allow you to accept the possibility that
God could have used it instead of supernatural forces to create the
universe. Consider this analogy: since it is the construction worker, not
the hammer that he uses, that builds a house, so too is it God, not His
tool-use of quantum tunneling, that creates the universe. Yet just as the
construction worker needs to use the hammer to build the house, God may need
to use quantum tunneling to create the universe.
1)When you say "God may need to use quantum tunneling" you give me the
impression
that you don't believe that God is omnipotent. Is that correct?
2)You are wrong. I do accept the possibility that God used quantum tunneling
to
create the universe. At this present time I consider that to be an extremely
unlikely eventuality because I am very confident that I am correctly
interpreting
the passages that deal with the question of God's detectability in the
creation process.
3)Ok, let's work with this analogy. If we state "This house declares the
glory of
the construction worker" we have an accurate statement because any research
into
how the house came to be would conclude that an intelligent agent must have
been
involved and we could properly laud his creative abilities. If however, we
are
walking in a field and find a broken-off branch and declare "This branch
declares
the glory of a carpenter" our statement is inaccurate. Our research into the
branch
would not verify for us than any intelligent agent was involved in it's
being broken
and in the field. It seems to me that you're position is that our research
into how the
universe came to be does not verify for us that any intelligent agent was
involved in the
universe being as it is. As such the universe does not "declare the glory
of God" just as a
random, broken branch does not declare the glory of a carpenter. The branch
could be as
it is even if there were no carpenter. The universe could be as it is, from
your scientific
perspective, even if there were no God.
"They would in fact declare nothing. They would just be sitting there as the
possible result of a process which required no involvement by a purposeful,
supernatural Creator."
On the contrary, a supernatural Creator could still have purposefully
created the universe using natural processes;
But he might not have, right? But Scripture indicates that the heavens
"declare"(not might declare) the glory of God, and that what can be known
about God "is" seen through what has been made(not "might be seen").
just because the Creator is
supernatural does not mean that His every action must, or even needs to,
involve supernatural forces But since your theology demands that God must
have created the universe supernaturally, your weak faith will not permit
you to accept the possibility that your theology may be wrong, at least in
this instance.
This is incorrect. I do accept the possibility certain aspects of
My theology, like this issue, may be wrong.
Hence your attempts to deny scientific truths in favor of
allusions to the necessity for science to entertain non-scientific
explanations.
Believe me, I know what you're going through. There were times in my life
when the conflict between science and theology nearly caused me to reject
one or the other. It was only because my faith was strong enough to
accommodate a few theological compromises that I was able to reconcile both.
I can't help but ask, "What sort of compromises could your scientific
beliefs
handle?"
Randy: "I believe that that which is known about God can be understood
through what had been made."
KLOB: "Which tells us that God created the universe using natural forces
rather then supernatural forces...."
"But based on what you've said so far I don't see how we would learn this
from what has been made."
On the contrary, everything I have said has been trying to demonstrate that
we can determine exactly that; maybe I haven't made myself clear. The
purpose of science is to do exactly this and it has been very successful at
it, in my opinion.
You sound for all the world like you're saying that scientific research into
the
Origins of the universe would indicate that the universe exists because God
Used quantum tunneling to create it. But you can't be saying that because
that
Would be an unscientific conclusion. So what are you saying?
Well, if your interpretation were correct, then "that which has been made"
would tell us that God cannot be supernatural. Since that is obviously
wrong then it must be your interpretation that is wrong. Instead of telling
us about the **physical** nature of God, "that which has been made" instead
must tell us about the **psychological** nature of God; for example, that
God decided to use natural forces rather than supernatural forces to create
the universe.
We needn't speculate. The passge tells us what it is that is known about
God.
It states that "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes,
His eternal
power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through
what
has been made, so that they are without excuse." It's nothing as specific
as
the fact that God chose to create through purely natural forces but more
general
things such as the fact that God is eternal and divine.
"Well, it's not an either/or situation. The wrong theology of the
geocentrists was based on their incorrect interpretation of Scripture."
Their theology is Christian; is Christianity based on an incorrect
interpretation of Scripture? What is based on an incorrect interpretation
is their scientific claims, not their theological claims. You appear to be
confusing the two.
For many people, a claim can be both theological and scientific. This may
Violate your understanding of theology but I have a different understanding.
"And there's nothing wrong with attempting to scientifically validate your
faith if your faith makes claims that can be scientifically tested."
Faith cannot makes claims that are scientifically testable; it wouldn't be
faith otherwise. However, the scientific claims you are making, the ones
that stem from your faith, are themselves based on incorrect interpretations
of Scripture, so if your science was right, your faith would be wrong.
I'm using faith in the sense of "body of believed doctrines" which would
Make it a synonym for "theology". Theology can make claims which can
Be scientifically, or historically, tested. Perhaps your theology doesn't
make
These kinds of claims but other people have different kinds of theologies.
"But, based on my interpretation of Scripture, I believe the origin of the
universe was a supernatural event. Once I understand quantum mechanics
better a may revise my theology but at least for now that is my position."
Why do you believe that?
I've quoted the passages in question several times.
It seems to mean that you believe it because God is Himself supernatural,
No, I believe it because of the passages I've quoted.
but that is a non sequitor. That would be like
saying that because man is flesh and blood, he can only create flesh and
blood objects. Besides, science establishes that the origin of the universe
was not a supernatural event, so it would appear that your interpretation is
wrong.
I don't presently understand quantum mechanics well enough to accept or
Reject this contention on the basis of the scientific evidence.
KLOB: "And as I have pointed out continuously, science can only say what
physical reality is, not what reality as a whole is...."
"Sagan didn't and Provine doesn't seem to agree with this position."
Atheists can misrepresent science just as easily as creationists can.
Besides, the argument from authority is a logical fallacy.
Certainly, but I'm not arguing for the truth of this position. I'm offering
It as a contrast to your position.
And are Sagan and Provine really in the minority among scientists?
KLOB: The fact that
Sagan and Provine believe this does not mean that it is an aspect of the
philosophy of science.
Okay.
"I would see Simpson's claim that evolution was an undirected process as
tending toward this same type of overstepping. Has the official scientific
community ever expresses a position on this issue?"
But Simpson isn't really saying anything about the nature of reality as a
whole, now is he?
Actually, he is. He is saying that if there is a God at all, He is the God
of
The deists, not the God of the Calvinists, because He does not direct the
Evolutionary process.
He is simply saying that, like any other natural
phenomena such as chemistry or gravity, evolution can occur on its own,
without the need for any supernatural intervention.
No, he's saying that "evolution MUST occur on it's own, without the
POSSIBILITY of any supernatural intervention.
Notice I said "without
the **NEED** for any supernatural intervention"; that does not mean that
there has **NEVER** been **ANY** supernatural intervention. Or are you one
of those people who believes that God must continually actively operate and
control all natural phenomena to keep the universe from falling apart?
Actually, I do believe that God "holds all things together". However, I
don't believe
This activity on God's part is detectable to scientific research.
"If science concluded that this universe is the only one that ever existed
or ever will exist, and also concluded that there are 10(exp)1,000,000,000
possible combinations of the physical constants in the universe, and also
concluded that only one combination out of this set would allow any kind of
life to exist what conclusion would science reach about the reason the
constants are the values that will support life."
But that's not evidence; those are the conclusions you would like to draw
from your observation of the universe, but you need evidence to make and
support such conclusions; can you suggest the kind of possible evidence you
would like to see that would allow you to come to these conclusions
(physical evidence, now, not Scriptural)?
You asked me for "possible evidence" and I said "IF science...". If
you're now
Saying that I have to describe the experiments that would possibly produce
these
Results then you've got me, I can't do it.
"I'm not suggesting that scientific methodology is fundamentally wrong, just
incomplete."
Incomplete in what sense? Incomplete in its ability to explain the physical
universe? Then it would be fundamentally wrong.
Incomplete in the sense that it doesn't explain non-predictable, non-
natural,
Non-reproducible events in the physical universe. As far as I can tell from
What you've said elsewhere, we agree on this point. Now I'm sure you
Wouldn't call this "incompleteness" since this is outside the purpose of
Science. I'm just focusing on the fact that since there are some areas(like
spiritual regeneration) where science has recognized that it can't give us a
complete explanation there may be other areas(like the mechanism of the
origin of the universe) where science has not recognized that it can't
give us a complete explanation.
"I'm not asking scientists to abandon their methodology, just to integrate
the findings of other truth seeking disciplines with their scientific
research."
Since the purpose of science is to explain the physical universe, and since
scientific methodology is the best way to do that, why should scientists
weaken their superior methodology by integrating into it inferior
methodologies?
I'm sure you're saying here that "the purpose of science is to explain the
Reproducible, natural, predictable aspects of the physical universe" and
So we don't disagree. I'm focusing on the possibility that things like the
mind and the mechanism of the origin of the universe may have been
miscategorized as areas open to complete explanation by scientific inquiry.
Piltdown Man was not a general phenomenon, it was a specific event, and I
have already explained that science cannot explain individual events, only
describe them. Besides, uncovering the Piltdown Man hoax has nothing to do
with explaining the physical universe, which is what we are discussing.
We're also discussing the role of explaining motivations in scientific
inquiry.
That's why I brought up this event.
Randy: "If by this you mean that God created the quantum nothingness so
that it had the characteristic of giving rise to universes spontaneously
(hopefully I'm stating this correctly) then I guess we just have different
theological views. What led you to this conclusion?"
KLOB: "Scientific knowledge that the origin of the universe was a natural
phenomenon coupled with my belief that God created the universe."
Randy:"So it appears that both scientific and theological considerations have
led
you to a particular theological conclusion.
If you want to believe so; I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
That you combined scientific and theological methods of inquiry to reach
A conclusion about the ultimate reason for the universe's existence and the
Method that was used to create it. Showing that at least in this case(which
I
Realize goes beyond the physical universe) scientific and extra-scientific
Methodologies were combined to discover truth. And if, as you mention
Elsewhere, science can possibly admit that certain events may be
supernatural
Then there is the possibility that scientific and extra-scientific
methodologies
Can be combined WITHIN the physical universe to examine those possibly
Supernatural events.
Randy:"Okay. But every truth-seeking discipline has ways of testing for the
truth
established by their particular discipline. Why can't scientists use these
other facts that have passed these other tests-for-truth in their scientific
research?"
KLOB:Because scientists could not trust the accuracy of these "facts" until
they had been tested against physical reality, and the overwhelming majority
of such "facts" could never be tested against physical reality.
But you believe that God created the universe. This is a fact you have not
Tested against physical reality and yet you still believe it to be true. I
Realize this is not a scientific conclusion and in your view does not affect
Any data you will encounter in the physical universe but it still seems to
me to show that scientists can trust "facts" that are not tested against
physicalr reality.
Science can
only study the physical universe, and it can do so only by testing facts
against physical reality. A "fact" that cannot be tested against physical
reality is worthless in science.
In science as a discipline, yes. But to an individual scientist who is
seeking
The truth (which may be more that just the scientific verifiable truth) a
fact
Like this would not be worthless.
Randy: "Since I believe God created the universe supernaturally, not
mechanistically, I would agree with this statement. I agree that what the
ID'ers are doing is not science as science is officially described. But I
think it's a valid method of seeking the truth, even if it's not valid
science."
KLOB: "I would agree to that, provided that ID'ers stopped trying to pass
off what they do as legitimate science and call it what it really is,
theological or metaphysical investigation."
RANDY'S FIRST ANSWER:"Okay, but I don't think that moves the debate
forward. Science then simply becomes a label for a truth-seeking discipline
which is narrow and refuses to consider explanations for physical phenomena
provided by other disciplines."
RANDY'S ANSWER AFTER READING THROUGH THE THREAD FOR
THE SECOND TIME: There are philosophers of science who accept what the
ID'ers do as legitimate science, though they are certainly in the minority.
So I
imagine the ID'ers will move the debate forward on two fronts. Arguing
philosophically that science should not be defined so as to exclude the kind
of
research they are doing, and arguing scientifically that their explanation
of the
universe's origin best matches the data. Although I've never read anything
by
the ID'er's on this subject, I suppose they reject the quantum tunneling
theory
you described as an explanation for cosmic origins.
Mostly because all those "explanations...provided by other disciplines" were
proven wrong when science found ways to test them against physical reality.
I find that very significant.
I'm inferring here that you're referring to explanations for predictable,
Repeatable, natural phenomena. I agree that science should be expected to
Provide explanations for these phenomena and that theology shouldn't be
Intruding in these areas with their alternate explanations. In my opinion
phenomena like regeneration, resurrection (at least so far), the mind and
the
origin of the universe are unexplainable by science. We seem to agree on
regeneration, we agree for the present on resurrection (although you believe
science may one day be able to study resurrection as a repeatable
phenomena),
We disagree on the prospects for future success in the study of the mind,
and
I don't at present have an informed opinion on the quantum tunneling
question.
"The scientific approach to research on phenomena like the mind becomes
'wait for us to come up with an explanation based solely on the functioning
of natural forces' instead of considering the results of other truth-seeking
disciplines."
Not really, though it can seem like that to a lay person looking for
specific answers that do not yet exist. However, considering that all
explanations for physical phenomena proposed by "other truth-seeking
disciplines" in the past have been proven wrong, why should science
entertain explanations it has no confidence will be correct?
But based on what you've said, science hasn't established that the
functioning of the mind IS a physical phenomena (if I correctly understand
Your use of that term). At this point the question is whether or not
science
Has made a category mistake by considering the mind a physical phenomena.
And how has theology's view that man's mind reflects an aspect of God's
Image in us been disproven?
"So do I understand you to be saying that you don't believe the mind has a
nonphysical component?"
Not necessarily; what I meant was that another difference between us is that
you appear to be offended whenever science investigates a phenomenon that
influences your personal beliefs, whereas I am not.
Not offended, just skeptical. This question would be closer to the core of
My theology than the origins question and so I'm more confident that my
Theology is correct and that science will never fully explain the workings
Of the mind. But I'll give it the fifty years and see where I am then.
"You made reference to the 'molecular basis' of free will; what do you
understand free will to be?"
What I said was that one day we may be able to understand the molecular
basis of free will just as we now understand the understand the molecular
basis of psychoses, addiction and psychopharmacology. I did not say that
free will had to have a molecular basis; neither can I say what I believe
free will to be.
Okay.
"Theology would claim that the mind has a nonphysical component."
Your theology might, but Christian theology is mute on this subject.
Not the Christian theology I've read. This is one of J. P. Moreland's main
Areas of inquiry.
"Is science claiming that the mind does not have a nonphysical component?"
There is not enough information for science to say one way or another, just
as science cannot comment on the reality of the soul. However, considering
all the natural phenomena that people once claimed must have had
nonphysical components which we now know do not, I personally see no reason
to abandon all that history and start claiming that the mind must be
nonphysical simply to avoid offending you.
Consider me non-offended. But you're not abandoning any history until it's
shown
That the mind actually is a natural, predictable, repeatable phenomena. We
agree that
Science would make a category mistake if it expected to find results from
scientific
Research into spiritual regeneration based on it's past track record with
"other" natural
Phenomena since spiritual regeneration is not, in fact, a natural phenomena.
In the same way,
Until science actually shows that the mind IS a natural, repeatable,
predictable phenomena
Science may have made a category mistake by expecting fruitful research into
the mind.
And this is also a perfect example of what I'm talking
About regarding the value of interdisciplinary approaches to seeking truth.
All of the
philosophical and theological research into the functioning of the mind
(both for and against
the thesis that the mind has a nonphysical component) could be considered by
a scientist
considering this type of a research program as he considers the possible
fruitfulness of that
research program. You have personally been convinced that scientific
research into spiritual
regeneration would not be profitable. As such you would be disinclined to
undertake a
research project in that area. Other scientists could consider truth claims
in other areas when
deciding on proceeding on other research projects.
"From my theological perspective one can't be 'raised' a Christian."
Then your theological perspective is wrong. Christianity is based on the
concept that it is something that must be taught to people. Becoming "born
again" occurs as a result of this teaching, not independently of it, and it
doesn't have to come like a bolt from the blue; it can instead occur as a
slow realization after many years of study, prayer, meditation and
reflection.
The point I was making was that one does not become a Christian because one
Is taught certain things growing up. One becomes a Christian because one
Accepts what one what taught (assuming that it's the true gospel).
"In the same way, from my theological perspective, one becomes a Christian
through an event, in this case regeneration and conversion."
Let me guess; you were not raised Christian (or were simply born into a
Christian home but not actively taught what it means to be Christian by
parents and church),
Well, sort of. I was "raised" a Catholic (which to me means that not only
Did my mother teach me that the Catholic faith was true, but the I made
The decision to accept what she was teaching me).
but were converted to it later in life, as a teenager
or a young adult at college most likely.
Yes.
Your perspective is typical of
such experiences, and certainly reflects the early history of Christianity,
when apostles went into Jewish or pagan communities to preach the Word. But
eventually these converted people began having children, and they felt
compelled to teach Christianity to them as they grew up. As such, the
emphasis of Christianity changed from a proselytizing religion (where all
must converted) to a nurturing religion (where all are raised within the
religion). Certainly proselytizing continues, but to believe that the
billion or more people born into Christian homes that are raised to be
Christian are in fact NOT Christian simply because they had never been
converted is in my opinion prejudicial and blasphemous.
It's not an either/or situation. My daughter was raised in a Christian home
AND
Was converted to Christ at the age of five. In this sense Christianity is
analogous
To marriage. One cannot just be "raised" to be married. One must make a
personal
Decision and act on that decision. I'm certainly not making any judgments
about
People based on the type of home in which they were raised.
"I guess we mean different things by the term 'Christian.'"
To me a Christian is what Paul meant it, a follower of Christ: a person who
believes that Christ died to pay for the sins of all mankind, so that all
people my have life, as well as someone who lives as Christ taught us to
live. You and I are discussing how one becomes Christian, not what makes
one Christian. However, since Paul indicates that salvation, like original
sin, was imposed upon all mankind without choice,
If you're saying here that everyone is saved then when disagree, so let me
say this.
I realize our discussion primarily concerns origins and not theology. I'm
happy to
Pursue this line of thought if you'd like but if you'd prefer we can drop it
at this
Point.
it really doesn't matter
whether we acknowledge that or not: our salvation from original sin is
guaranteed. What matters now is how we live that life.
Randy: "I also believe that the resurrection is an event that has occurred
in this physical universe that cannot be explained scientifically."
KLOB: "Ditto what I said above for regeneration; by the way, did you know
that at least a dozen religious figures have bodily resurrected in the
course of human history?"
"RESPONSE A: Oh, sure. There was Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, etc."
I meant people from other religions; Christianity holds no patent on claims
of bodily resurrection, you know.
Agreed. Although from the reading I've done, Christianity's resurrection
claim
Is more substantiated.
"RESPONSE B: To be theologically precise, those other figures were
resuscitated, not resurrected."
Again, maybe your theology claims that, but not Christian theology.
Resurrection is the return of life to the dead, whereas resuscitation is
merely the support of what life is left until it grows stronger. There is
no Scriptural doubt that Lazarus was dead.
Actually, that wasn't my point. In the theology I've read, resuscitation
Is contrasted with resurrection to describe bringing life to a dead person
Who then lives out the rest of his life and then dies again. Resurrection
Refers to the giving of not only a new life to a dead person but a new
Mode of existence, a new resurrection body (as Paul discusses in 1 Cor. 15).
I certainly agree that Lazarus was dead.
"RESPONSE REAL: You brought this up, I imagine, because you don't believe
any of them (Jesus included?) TRULY resurrected? Or because you consider
the Christian claim of Christ's resurrection to be just one-in-the-crowd?"
No, it was to suggest that resurrection may be at least reproducible and
possibly even predictable; if so, then it might be a legitimate field of
scientific inquiry.
That would definitely be an interesting development.
"I think this is my main question. How does science determine that an event
is non-natural?"
Since it has so far never occurred, I can only give tentative suggestions.
If some biochemical phenomenon were found to have no molecular explanation,
that would qualify as a non-natural event. For example, a clergyman prays
that a parishioner's cancer is cured; the tumor subsequently disappears and
never comes back. Scientists study the event, but cannot find a molecular
cause for the remission. They would call it a spontaneous remission, but
that label would explain nothing. Future generations would no doubt
continue to study the event, but if there is no molecular cause for the
remission they will never be able to explain it.
That is a negative example; here's a more positive one. The conservation of
momentum states that in a perfectly elastic collision it is impossible for
the sum of the momentums of the colliding macromolecular objects to be
different after the collision from before. Imagine someone excavating
Jericho found two golden spheres that, when they collided, always had a
momentum sum greater after the collision than they had before. Though no
doubt all sorts of weird natural explanations would be concocted to explain
the phenomenon, by definition it is a distinctly non-natural phenomenon.
What examples would you suggest (besides spiritual regeneration and bodily
resurrection)?
No additional ones. These two make the point I was asking about. In the
case
Of the colliding spheres no other truth-seeking discipline would seem to me
to
Be equipped to step in and research the problem. In the case of the healed
patients
Theology could offer a possible explanation I think the question now is
which
Category the functioning of the mind and the mechanism of the origin of the
Universe fall into. I am personally convinced that science has made a
category
Mistake by treating these areas as objects of fruitful scientific inquiry.
But as
You say, we'll see how it plays out in the coming months and years. Perhaps
I'm
In for a change of theology.
KLOB: "...in that case science could only describe the event, not explain
it. But so far no such event has ever been discovered."
"But this sounds like you're saying that science would in fact 'throw up
its' hands and give up.' Based on our interaction so far I wonder if the
resurrection occurred today if science would say 'Give us enough time and
we'll explain this event! But don't you religious types try to pass this off
as a miracle!'"
Science cannot abandon as unexplainable reproducible, predictable, natural
phenomena, but it can and has acknowledged that specific non-reproducible,
unpredictable events are unexplainable. As long as the resurrection was not
reproducible or predictable (even if it was natural), science would
recognize it as an unexplainable event. Individual **scientists** may not
admit this, but neither would they ever be able to explain it despite their
blind faith.
Okay.
"At least some scientists have already made the claim that evolution is an
undirected process and I haven't heard of any backlash from the official
scientific community."
For one thing, there is no "official scientific community." What do you
think we are, some sort of secret society?
No, I would hope that scientists are a group of individuals who are
Concerned enough for the truth that they would openly object when
Carl Sagan goes on PBS and makes theological claims about ultimate
Reality and passes them off as science.
For another, saying that
evolution is undirected is not the same thing as saying that "space-time
[is] the fundamental reality of existence." For still another, saying that
evolution is undirected is no more atheistic than saying that chemistry is
undirected.
For a Calvinistic like myself, both of these statements are VERY atheistic.
For still another, most scientists don't care if some of their
colleagues say stupid things; after all, it's a free universe. Just as long
as they don't falsify their data.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Well, they screamed bloody murder when the creationists made scientific
claims
Based on their religion but said nothing when Simpson made religious claims
based
On his science. That doesn't seem like a balanced perspective to me.
Randy Bronson
_____________________________________________________________________
| |
| ______ ______ _____ Randy Bronson, Manufacturing Tech |
| /\_____\/\_____\/\____\ TECH-SOURCE INC. |
| \/_ _/ / ____/\/_ _/ 442 S. North Lake Blvd. |
| / / // / /___ / / / Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 |
| / / /_\/___ /_/ / / TEL : 407-262-7100 |
| / / //\____/ /\_\/ /_\ FAX : 407-339-2554 |
| \/_/ \/_____/\/______/ EMAIL: randy@techsource.com |
| |
|_____________________________________________________________________|