Re: [asa] Bible as scientific text

Jon:

You say (at least I think this is you):
"I believe empirical evidence and sound reason should
> help guide our spiritual discernment of what is (or are) God's purposes in
> scripture."

Then you go on to pose the question:
> I would pose the question simply, and not rhetorically, "Did God intend
> the Bible to convey scientific truth to modern culture?"

On your verificationist account, how would one address this question?
How, to use your Popperian account, could any answer be falsified?
Intentions are clearly no less empirically evident for God than they are
for men. Intentions appear to reside in a positivist wasteland.

You can ask, "does the Bible convey scientific truth (whatever that is)?"

Option A:
> A. The Bible is absolutely a scientific text, and when it is speaking
> about nature, it always gives accurate information about the workings of
> nature.

This appears far too vague. What I think you mean to get at is whether
there is an attempt, perhaps a universal attempt, to make "objective"
statements about "nature." Science strives for a dehumanized description
of the world. This is likely not possible, nonetheless, it is it's objective.
Why humans would be concerned with such a perspective is not wholly clear.
Are we really interested, even deeply interested, in matters that are
not human? Probably not. But we imagine that there is some kind of
"Godlike" view of the world, a disembodied, "true" view.

It is unclear why God would be interested in such knowledge. He desires,
after all, to communicate to humans. All our knowledge, including
"scientific knowledge" is metaphorical, otherwise it would be meaningless
to us and incomprehensible.

So I guess my first question is how to clearly distinguish what you call
"scientific knowledge" from other kinds of communication and knowledge.
What you probably mean is, "does God intend to convey modern science in
Scripture?" Where "modern" means contemporary. It seems that He is
interested in more important matters, but how could I know? This is
no easy question. God's Word intends something more than "cold facts,"
for they are of no relevance to warm humans. Nonetheless, the means
of conveying this message and truth must be a medium with which we
are familiar, some of these we surely call "facts." Without a common
and familiar world of "facts" no greater communication could take place.

You suggest:

"If our scientific knowledge is tentative and partial, and if
> the Bible appears to contradict our present understandings of science, how
> would we know if a discrepancy is due to our limited knowledge of the
> world, as opposed to the Bible being wrong about nature?"

There is no possible way.

You ask,
"How can we tell the difference between those that were meant
> as scientific facts and those that were meant as metaphor?"

Since I think all knowledge is metaphorical (i.e., there is
no "literal" knowledge), but do believe there is a distinction
here, I would have to say that it is a matter of degree.
"An electron is a particle" is judged differently from "the moon
is a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas." We all agree that
the second is no "literally" true, and that the intended meaning
points beyond the "literal" truth. The first plays close to the
limits of our ability to comprehend. I can only say that the
answer to your question is cultural and temporal. Perhaps a
thousand years from now someone will wonder what we meant by
that an electron is a particle, and wonder whether we meant that
to be metaphorical, or perhaps not even grasp (as we ourselves
may begin to wonder) what we meant by "particle."

There is much more you have addressed here of interest.
They are good questions, but, alas, I am called to other matters.

Thanks,

bill

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:53:09 -0400, "Jon Tandy" <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Richard,
>
>
>
> I was interested in your comments. Following John's lead, I have copied
> the ASA list as well as a few other participants, as many on the list are
> regularly involved in such discussions. If this seems inappropriate, I
> would be glad to keep the discussion private or bring it to an end.
>
>
>
> I cannot speak for Randy in order to put words in his mouth, nor can I
> answer what source of knowledge would give him the confidence to assert
> that God did not plan the Bible to be a source of modern scientific
> knowledge. Note that my e-mail was not directed to you, only perhaps
> indirectly through John. I also agree that the comments jumped the gun a
> little in the discussion; you simply asked questions of clarification, and
> my response made some assumptions that in your challenge to Randy, you may
> believe that God did intend the text to convey scientific information (or
> that the text should do so).
>
>
>
> So let me start again to attempt to answer the question as I see it. If
> it's simply a debate over "I think the Bible should convey scientific
> truth" versus "No, you're wrong, that was not its purpose", then each
> party can simply part ways with a philosophical disagreement, a difference
> in personal viewpoint. However, if there is any way to arrive at a more
> conclusive answer, I believe empirical evidence and sound reason should
> help guide our spiritual discernment of what is (or are) God's purposes in
> scripture. There is an old saying from John Adams, "Facts are stubborn
> things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates
> of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." At
> the same time, we have to acknowledge our human and scientific knowledge
> is by definition tentative and partial.
>
>
>
> I would pose the question simply, and not rhetorically, "Did God intend
> the Bible to convey scientific truth to modern culture?" Let me suggest
> some possible answers and see where they lead.
>
>
>
> A. The Bible is absolutely a scientific text, and when it is speaking
> about nature, it always gives accurate information about the workings of
> nature.
>
> Follow-up questions:
>
> - What would it take to falsify this proposition?
>
> - If our scientific knowledge is tentative and partial, and if
> the Bible appears to contradict our present understandings of science, how
> would we know if a discrepancy is due to our limited knowledge of the
> world, as opposed to the Bible being wrong about nature?
>
>
>
> B. The Bible NEVER gives accurate information about the workings of
> nature.
>
> I dismiss this one immediately, because no one that I know claims the
> Bible is 100% inaccurate, and it would require disproving every single
> statement about nature made in the Bible.
>
>
>
> C. The Bible sometimes gives accurate scientific information, and at other
> times it gives metaphorical (but not inaccurate) statements – these may
> appear to be incorrect, but weren't meant to assert scientific facts.
>
> Follow-up questions:
>
> - How can we tell the difference between those that were meant
> as scientific facts and those that were meant as metaphor?
>
> - If a seemingly "scientific" statement becomes clearly
> disproved by the facts, is this reasonable justification to declare it
> metaphorical?
>
> - If some verses give the appearance of being "scientific"
> statements but aren't, of what value is holding the Bible as a scientific
> text at all, when it may be forever indeterminate how to tell them apart?
>
>
>
> D. The Bible sometimes gives statements that are technically inaccurate by
> modern standards, but which made sense to the understandings of the people
> at the time it was given.
>
> In this case, as in the previous, the difficulty is telling the
> difference.
>
>
>
> E. God didn't intend the Bible to give instruction in science, but for
> "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
> (2Tim 3:16).
>
> This position is compatible with all the above positions, with a few
> clarifications:
>
> - Where the Bible does give accurate scientific information,
> it is incidental to the main purpose and/or it was providentially made to
> be both technically correct and spiritually edifying.
>
> - A and E could be compatible, by rephrasing it to say that
> God's purpose was _both_ spiritual truth and scientific accuracy.
>
> - Where the Bible gives inaccurate information, it is
> incidental to the main purpose, because it was meant to convey a message
> of spiritual motivation, not mental information.
>
> - Where the Bible gives metaphor, it was clearly meant to
> convey principles of righteousness, not technical knowledge.
>
>
>
> I believe in the cases of (B, D, and possibly C) above, it is reasonable
> to suggest that God did not intend the Bible to be a scientific textbook.
> Let me know if you think this is an unjustified conclusion.
>
>
>
> This has already gotten too long, so I want to briefly conclude with a few
> examples of what I look at when trying to weigh the evidences and
> reasonableness of the positions above.
>
>
>
> - The Bible describes the heavens as a solid firmament, with waters above,
> that come down to earth through windows that open and shut (Gen 1; Gen 8:2;
> Job 36:27-30; Job 37:18; Psa 148:4). This conveyed information to "modern
> culture" in the ancient Near East, in keeping with their understanding of
> the cosmos. Today we know this is not an accurate scientific description
> of the heavens.
>
> - The Bible describes a flat earth (Dan 4:10-11; Psa 135:7; Jere 10:13 ,
> and many others that speak of the "ends of the earth"). This was once
> taken as a scientific truth, in rejection of the concept of a spherical
> earth.
>
> - The Bible describes an earth that doesn't move (Psa 93:1). This was
> once taken as a scientific truth, in rejection of an earth that moves on
> its axis and in its orbit.
>
> - The Bible describes the scientific process of creating hail and rain –
> God creates them, and stores them in treasurehouses and bottles in the
> heavens (Job 38:22,37). However, it isn't a very useful concept to inform
> our modern scientific understanding of meteorology. Unless someone
> identifies these treasurehouses and bottles, or disproves the
> understanding that rain and hail are formed by the condensation of water
> in the atmosphere, I think it is fair to say these scriptures are
> inaccurate, scientifically.
>
> - The Bible says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, but
> grows into the greatest of all herbs (Mark 4:32). I believe it's fair to
> say that both of those statements, as written, are not true in a
> scientific sense, if taken literally.
>
>
>
> These are just a few examples of where the Bible is at best speaking
> metaphor, and in several cases pretty clearly giving inaccurate scientific
> facts. This doesn't even get into contentious questions of the age of the
> earth, animal death before Adam, biological antiquity or common descent,
> etc.
>
>
>
> It is these difficulties that causes many people to believe that the Bible
> was not meant to convey scientific truth, but spiritual reality. For
> myself, I would be glad to accept A along with E, but for the fact that
> some of the evidence seems to contradict it.
>
>
>
> It is God's stated purpose in scripture to promote righteousness and to
> bring souls to Himself -- I don't suppose we have any disagreement there.
> But I can't think of any stated goal where God has said that He intended
> the Bible to convey anything like "scientific mysteries" or "modern
> science" or "exact [biological] processes" in the sense intended by
> Randy's statement. Can you? If so, I'd be glad to consider them. If
> not, why question Randy's statement to that regard?
>
>
>
> I hope these thoughts may be helpful, and I would be glad to receive your
> response if you are able to reply.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Jon Tandy
>
>
>
> From: John Walley [mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:01 PM
> To: richard@richardghowe.com; AmericanScientificAffiliation; Randy Isaac;
> Jon Tandy
> Subject: Fw: [asa] Olasky on Collins
>
>
>
> Randy, Jon,
>
>
>
> Below is a combined response to both of your emails from my friend Richard
> Howe.
>
>
>
> Richard, Jon replied to you indirectly because I removed your name to
> protect your privacy but will now copy you to allow you to correspond
> directly. I would like to keep this on the list to invite others who may
> want to participate in this discussion to do so as well.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
>
>
>
> John, et al.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the emails and responses. Let me give some "in brief" responses
> of my own to Jon Tandy. (His original comments are indented.)
>
>
>
> However, your friend doesn't really offer any positive critique on the
> subject, "Did God intend the Bible to be scientific textbook, intended to
> convey accurate information to inform the 20th century scientific
> community of greater knowledge in their fields of study?" So my question
> to him is, do you really think that God intended the Bible to be that sort
> of information source?
>
>
>
> Let me acquaint Jon with the context of my comments (in case it perhaps
> got lost in the email exchanges). I received an (unsolicited) email from
> John Walley which had the comments by Randy regarding the issue of
> (presumably) Olasky's questions posed to Collins and intercepted by the
> ASA (I assume via World magazine; John sent me the link to the article but
> I was not able to read the article since I am not a subscriber to World
> online. The link I received required a membership to read all but the
> opening few paragraphs). I was happy to receive such an email (as I am
> with all of the emails I get from John (a good friend) even if I don't or
> can't take the opportunity to response to each of them). I responded to
> one numbered item which contained several points by Randy. I am also
> appreciative of your Jon's comments (even though they seemingly were
> directed to John Walley instead of to me directly; perhaps because my
> email had gotten lost in the exchange or for some other understandable
> reason).
>
>
>
> First, my questions were straightforward and occasioned by Randy's
> categorical claims to know (among other things) what God intended and what
> God (or the Bible) meant. My questions were completely fair. I simply asked
> how Randy got the knowledge he claimed to have. But instead of a direct
> answer, he suggested that perhaps he should have "done a little more
> editing" and that he used "more anthropomorphism" than he should have
> used. That's fine. I'm sure I've written things on which I later wished I
> had done more editing. But it is interesting that he characterized his own
> comments thus in light of him introducing these very comments with "we do
> want to ensure that there is a clarity [sic] of dialog with accurate and
> fair analysis of all sides."
>
>
>
> Second, Jon now poses questions indirectly to me about what I think God
> intended for the Bible. This is unacceptable at this point in the dialog.
> I was not the one who made any assertions about what I thought God
> intended about anything. Randy was the one who used such language. He is
> the one who said what God intended. My straightforward question was to the
> effect "Where did he get such knowledge?" If he now wants to say that he
> does not have such knowledge (i.e., if this is something that he wishes he
> could have edited or expunged as an anthropomorphism), then that is fine.
> But I am not going to take the bait and let someone else redirect the
> conversation as if my original questions were either unfair or answered.
>
>
>
> Third, it is irrelevant that I did not "offer any positive critique on the
> subject, 'Did God intend the Bible to be scientific textbook, intended to
> convey accurate information to inform the 20th century scientific
> community of greater knowledge in their fields of study?'" At this point,
> I am under no obligation to offer such a critique. I am not the one who
> introduced the language of what God's intentions are. So I repeat: Where
> did Randy get the knowledge that he claims to have about what God did not
> intend the Bible to be? How does he know what God meant it to reveal? Why
> (to modify the form of my previous question) should one not dismiss what
> Randy says God meant as "a certain human interpretation"? How can he know
> what message God has intended for the text? Where does he get this
> knowledge?
>
>
>
> How would he substantiate such a position from a theological point of
> view? Would the facts and observations about the natural world have any
> bearing in determining whether such a viewpoint is valid, and if not, why
> not? If the evidence from the natural world isn't relevant to a
> discussion of scientific concerns (presuming that is what the Bible is
> meant to be), how can one consider such a position to have any scientific
> merit? On the other hand, if evidence from the natural world is allowed
> to give independent testimony, what if such evidence contradicts what
> seems to be a straightforward reading of the Bible?
>
>
>
> Would it shake his faith if he were to learn that the Bible gives some
> rather inaccurate scientific statements? If so, I would wish him well and
> probably drop the conversation, but ask him to come back if he ever has an
> interest in discussing it further or if he runs into a crisis of faith
> over such issues, so we can have a more profitable discussion. If he were
> interested in an open-minded discussion, I would go into some of the
> questions I posed in an e-mail several weeks ago.
>
>
>
> While all these questions are interesting, important, and relevant to an
> overall discussion of these topics, they are somewhat premature in the
> exchange. Perhaps if time allows (and the questions are not rhetorical)
> all interested parties (and others who might want to join in) can explore
> them. I am very interested, as a matter of principle, in an "open-minded
> discussion." Whether such a discussion can take place in these emails, or,
> indeed, by emails at all, remains to be seen. My experience has been that
> it is those with whom I am having the discussion that tire of the
> discussion before I do.
>
>
>
> I hope that all parties will take my questions and comments in the spirit
> of friendship in which they are intended.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard G. Howe
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard G. Howe, Ph.D.
>
> Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics and Director of the Ph.D. Program,
> Southern Evangelical Seminary
>
> Home Email: richard@richardghowe.com
>
> Seminary Email: rhowe@ses.edu
>
> Internet: http://www.richardghowe.com/
>
> Blog: http://quodlibetalblog.wordpress.com/
>
> Faculty Web Site:
> http://ses.edu/Academic/FacultyPages/RichardGHowe/tabid/477/Default.aspx
>
> "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad
> philosophy needs to be answered." C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 13 09:56:27 2009