(The following is my
response to the previous post with John's permission.)
John:
I found your "3 important
questions" quite significant though my answers disagree with yours. I suppose we could write off most of our differences
as merely semantic, but I think we both agree that definitions are important,
as the first 2 questions indicate. So
I'll try and give my answers as well as my reasons for disagreement.
First, what is truth? For some reason, though you asked this
question first, you didn't answer it first.
Of course, you were responding to my post WHAT IS TRUTH?. I still haven't changed my
thinking on this, even though I posted this nearly 8 years ago. Truth is simply that which is, those
statements which correspond with reality.
It appears as if you, however, believe that
there are two totally different kinds of truth, "physical truth"
which, though it does exist, "cannot be known in a fixed and immutable
way," and what I suppose you'd call "theological truth," that
which "is exempt from challenge and improvement."
I disagree!
Though there may be many differing categories of truth statements, truth
itself does not change its definition depending on its subject.
Though much of physical truth cannot be known
with certainty as you state, there is quite a bit that can be known. It is the truth for instance, that I got out
of bed this morning; this is a known fact.
It is also a truth that the earth rotates around the sun and that if I
jump off my roof I will fall in an earthward direction and so forth.
In the same manner, there are theological
truths that can be known, that are "fixed and immutable." But there are also many that, as in the realm
of science, we cannot be certain of.
Centuries of theological debate certainly demonstrate that.
So then, there are truths in whatever
category we may choose. While some of
these can be known with certainty, many cannot.
And all truth statements are open to challenge, though if they
are truth they are not open to change.
Our faith or "belief" (or unbelief) in these statements in no
way affects their truthfulness.
What is science? You define it as "the construction and refinement of
mathematical and conceptual models of observed physical phenomena; where the
validity of a model is measured by how accurately the model predicts future
events." I wasn't sure exactly what this means. I confess that I am not a scientist. However, I am familiar with what is known as
The Scientific Method, though as John C. Lennox states: "Contrary to popular impression, there
is no one agreed scientific method, though certain elements crop up regularly
in attempts to describe what 'scientific' activity involves: hypothesis, experiment, data, evidence,
modified hypothesis, theory, prediction, explanation, and so on. But precise definition is very
elusive." He quotes also the view
that "science 'by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable,
that which is governed by law.'" (God's
Undertaker, page 32.) Such
definitions would rule out many fields such as cosmology as science, as he
explains. I would add that history and
archaeology would also be ruled out.
Lennox gives "another way of looking at
things" which he refers to as "the method of inference to the best
explanation (or abduction ..."). He
admits, however, that the previous method would "carry more
authority."
Now to question 3: "What point of view does the Bible come
from in the field of science?" Here
it seems that while we both seem to end up in nearly the same place, we get
there by different routes.
The Bible is not a scientific book; it is
"pre-scientific." The New
Testament was completed 1,500 years before the birth of modern science; most of
the Old Testament was completed even before the observations of the ancient
Greeks; the Torah preceded them by 1,000 years.
So to speak of "early scientific models" is an anachronism,
which
if Moses had used (to use your words),
"he would have been ignored as a crazy person."
The biblical language, however, was not
unscientific. It simply referred to
various phenomena as they were perceived.
Thus Moses would have perceived the sun as rising and setting (the same
way we do). The biblical writers also
used figures of speech freely, such as metaphor and hyperbole. I strongly suspect that the various creation
accounts were just that. (See my
post: SOME THOUGHTS ON CREATION.)
Of course, I'll also publish your response to
my response.
(Now a few remarks as
to some of CA's comments on your post.)
Yes, Galileo disagreed with the Church's
teachings on cosmology. But as I seem to
recall, the problem was not that the Church had a biblically based view, but
that the Church had adopted the "scientific" views of Aristotle,
which had been around for two millennia.
Many -- both theologians and scientists -- of his day were opposed to
him. Scientists can be as conservative
as theologians. As you may know, the
current "big bang" theory of the origins of the universe was opposed
not only by 6-day creationists but also by scientists who held to a
steady-state universe.
As I said above, faith doesn't determine
truth; one's believe in a truth claim
does not make that claim true. This goes
for Atheists' beliefs as well as Christians' beliefs. Atheists accept many unproven things by
faith: how life emerged from non-life by natural selection; how mind evolved
from non-mind.
Despite your claims to the contrary, there is
evidence for the truths of Christianity, which if you really desired to, you
could examine for yourself.
I would also recommend, John, that you do the
same.