The Co-existence of Science and Theology

11/15/2007 12:55:47 PM · #276

Originally posted by RonB:

So, to paraphrase the text in more modern verbiage:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat of it: for in the day that you eat of it you will be legally bound to experience death.

I can paraphrase, too. "If you learn the difference between good and evil, then you will have done something evil and face a consequence you don't understand as punishment."

11/15/2007 12:59:58 PM · #277

Originally posted by JBHale:

Originally posted by Flash:
1. That is what it says. You'll die. I have no idea why a unit of time was used, only that a unit of time was used.

The story is saying that the punishment for eating the apple was taking away immortality from all of humanity forever. The passage is written to explain why humans die, and it shows it through the apple incident.

Originally posted by RonB:

5) Obviously, He foresaw the temptation in the garden. But He had predetermined to give Man free-will to make his own decisions, even knowing that he would choose poorly. That's why he had ALSO predetermined the way of reconiliation ( that would be Jesus Christ ).

So is that why God was so angry when she ate the apple? God isn't always shown in the Bible as knowing the future. Sometimes he can do it (like when he speaks through some of the prophets) and other times the people clearly do something he doesn't expect and is angry about (like the people in Judges).

It all depends on which source wrote the section of the Bible you're reading. Different writers used different literary techniques and styles, thus giving different ways to look at God.

You don't give God His due. He is omniscient. Which means that He knew beforehand that He would be angry.
It's kind of like, on a more human scale: I KNEW that my child would disobey my instruction to not do such-and-such, and I KNEW that I would be upset with her when she did, and I KNEW that if she did it I would end up disciplining her for it, and I had determined before she did it what that discipline would be, and I had already told her that doing it would make me upset, and had already told her what the discipline would be, but I still did not take any action to prevent her from doing it, because that would take away her freedom to choose. Multiply that a thousandfold and you can see why living without free will wouldn't be much of a life.

11/15/2007 01:03:12 PM · #278

Originally posted by RonB:

Like I said - The big difference is that when scientific conclusions are shown to be unprovable, the defenders of science refuse to acknowledge that fact; when creationists are likewise challenged, they acknowledge that they have no proof, but that they still accept the conclusions on faith.

By their very definition, theories are unproven, but represent the most reasonable factual explanation based on empirical data. By their very definition, beliefs are unprovable, and represent the will to blindness of the best evidence available that believers are afflicted with.

Empirical data is not faith. It is empirical data. There's no argument in existence that can wish away cold, hard, factual data.

Edit: unprovable -> unproven

Message edited by author 2007-11-15 13:05:28.

Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

11/15/2007 01:04:06 PM · #279

Originally posted by RonB:

Like I said - The big difference is that when scientific conclusions are shown to be unprovable, the defenders of science refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Yeah, you said it, but that doesn't make it true. When scientific conclusions are disproven, they are abandoned (geocentrism, phlogiston theory, etc.). Macroevolution has not been disproven (or shown to be unprovable) and offers the best explanation for available evidence. 2000 years ago you might have claimed that heliocentrism was unprovable, but that wouldn't make it so.

Message edited by author 2007-11-15 13:09:16.

JBHale

Canon EOS-20D

11/15/2007 01:05:02 PM · #280

Originally posted by RonB:

I agree that he's like that in SOME stories. But why tell prophets the future only SOME of the time?

What is painfully obvious in the Bible is the many types of "God." In one creation story he is walking in the garden with Adam, he gets angry, he is more personified. In the other story, he just a force that doesn't even really intervene with anything, he creates and lets human be.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/15/2007 01:05:41 PM · #281

Originally posted by RonB:

It's kind of like, on a more human scale: I KNEW that my child would disobey my instruction to not do such-and-such, and I KNEW that I would be upset with her when she did, and I KNEW that if she did it I would end up disciplining her for it, and I had determined before she did it what that discipline would be, and I had already told her that doing it would make me upset, and had already told her what the discipline would be, but I still did not take any action to prevent her from doing it, because that would take away her freedom to choose. Multiply that a thousandfold and you can see why living without free will wouldn't be much of a life.

Bingo!

R.

11/15/2007 01:11:22 PM · #282

Originally posted by RonB:

Yeah... I guess God let that unexploded grenade blow up and rip apart those Bosnian kids who were out toboganning, because if he didn't, the guy who first threw it would have been had his free will curtailed. Makes perfect sense now.

11/15/2007 01:12:02 PM · #283

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
So, to paraphrase the text in more modern verbiage:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat of it: for in the day that you eat of it you will be legally bound to experience death.

I can paraphrase, too. "If you learn the difference between good and evil, then you will have done something evil and face a consequence you don't understand as punishment."

What verse are you paraphrasing? Could you post the original, along with your extrapolations, so that we can see how your paraphrase was developed?

For the edification of those who really desire to explore the subject rationally, Adam and Eve were not punished for learning the difference between good and evil - they were punished for disobeying God's specific instruction - the consequences of which He forewarned them.

Scripture doesn't say HOW God conveyed the concept of death to them and doesn't need to. Suffice it to say, the idea was conveyed in a manner that they fully understood. If they hadn't, the conversation in the garden between Eve and the serpent could not have been meaningful. Why would the serpent challenge Eve by saying "You will not surely die" if that concept was meaningless to Eve?

11/15/2007 01:20:04 PM · #284

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
Like I said - The big difference is that when scientific conclusions are shown to be unprovable, the defenders of science refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Yeah, you said it, but that doesn't make it true. When scientific conclusions are disproven, they are abandoned (geocentrism, phlogiston theory, etc.). Macroevolution has not been disproven (or shown to be unprovable) and offers the best explanation for available evidence. 2000 years ago you might have claimed that heliocentrism was unprovable, but that wouldn't make it so.

I erred, admittedly. My fingers got ahead of me. I should have said

The big difference is that when scientific conclusions are shown to be unprovEN ( not unprovABLE ), the defenders of science refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/15/2007 01:21:03 PM · #285

Originally posted by RonB:

If you placed a dangerous object in the room with naive children who don't understand the difference between a good action and a bad one or the meaning of negative consequences, and left them to choose the correct action, knowing full well what the result would be, you would be charged with criminal negligence and child endangerment (at the very least). Hopefully, you'd know better than to put a bear trap in a room with a baby (even if you tell the baby not to touch it).

cheekymunky

Canon EOS-40D

11/15/2007 01:24:44 PM · #286

"Truth in the matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived" - Oscar Wilde

One the subject of Adam and Eve: Did Adam have sex with his Daughter? or did they have a son?

We are getting a bit stuck here, basically this is reason vs superstition debate.

On death, I like Alberts Einsteins view:

"Strange is our situation here upon earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to a divine purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: That we are here for the sake of others...for the countless unknown souls with whose fate we are connected by a bond of sympathy. Many times a day, I realize how much my outer and inner life is built upon the labors of people, both living and dead, and how earnestly I must exert myself in order to give in return as much as I have received."

Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

11/15/2007 01:28:35 PM · #287

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
It's kind of like, on a more human scale: I KNEW that my child would disobey my instruction to not do such-and-such, and I KNEW that I would be upset with her when she did, and I KNEW that if she did it I would end up disciplining her for it, and I had determined before she did it what that discipline would be, and I had already told her that doing it would make me upset, and had already told her what the discipline would be, but I still did not take any action to prevent her from doing it, because that would take away her freedom to choose. Multiply that a thousandfold and you can see why living without free will wouldn't be much of a life.

Yeah... I guess God let that unexploded grenade blow up and rip apart those Bosnian kids who were out toboganning, because if he didn't, the guy who first threw it would have been had his free will curtailed. Makes perfect sense now.

You do not have the mind of God, but arrogantly presume to know what's good and evil about His actions.
For all you know, the reason he let that grenade be tossed, and let it explode, is because he KNEW that if He didn't, that the kids who were on that toboggan would have grown up and carried, and detonated, a suitcase nuclear device in Times Square.

JBHale

Canon EOS-20D

11/15/2007 01:29:12 PM · #288

Originally posted by scalvert:

Hmmm... Saw 5??

Message edited by author 2007-11-15 13:29:27.

JBHale

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

11/15/2007 01:31:03 PM · #289

Originally posted by RonB:

And maybe life just happens. Why is there such a need to have a puppet master controlling every aspect of every person's life?

11/15/2007 02:00:12 PM · #290

Originally posted by JBHale:

And maybe life just happens. Why is there such a need to have a puppet master controlling every aspect of every person's life?

If you believe that you exercised free will in thinking up and typing out your post, then logically you must believe that there is no puppet master controlling every aspect of every person's life, since you were not controlled. You have free will.
If you do NOT believe that you freely thought it up and typed it out, then logically you must believe that there IS a puppet master controlling every aspect of every person's life, including yours, and there is nothing you can do about it, or would WANT to do about it ( because your thoughts are also controlled ). But, you seem to be enjoying yourself just the same, so no harm, no foul.
To answer your question, I don't think there is such a need. But, I still think that God is needed - not as a puppet master, but as, well, God.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

11/15/2007 02:01:54 PM · #291

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
It's kind of like, on a more human scale: I KNEW that my child would disobey my instruction to not do such-and-such, and I KNEW that I would be upset with her when she did, and I KNEW that if she did it I would end up disciplining her for it, and I had determined before she did it what that discipline would be, and I had already told her that doing it would make me upset, and had already told her what the discipline would be, but I still did not take any action to prevent her from doing it, because that would take away her freedom to choose. Multiply that a thousandfold and you can see why living without free will wouldn't be much of a life.

Yeah... I guess God let that unexploded grenade blow up and rip apart those Bosnian kids who were out toboganning, because if he didn't, the guy who first threw it would have been had his free will curtailed. Makes perfect sense now.

You do not have the mind of God, but arrogantly presume to know what's good and evil about His actions.
For all you know, the reason he let that grenade be tossed, and let it explode, is because he KNEW that if He didn't, that the kids who were on that toboggan would have grown up and carried, and detonated, a suitcase nuclear device in Times Square.

Ah yes, it's all a big Mystery. The ultimate escapist conclusion when all else fails, and those nasty facts get in the way. Incidentally, even though you may think your scenario is "better" somehow, you've just committed the same "arrogant presumption" you've accused me of.

Apple iPhone 5

11/15/2007 02:06:41 PM · #292

Originally posted by RonB:

For all you know, the reason he let that grenade be tossed, and let it explode, is because he KNEW that if He didn't, that the kids who were on that toboggan would have grown up and carried, and detonated, a suitcase nuclear device in Times Square.

Ah. So God only looks after the USA?

cheekymunky

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/15/2007 02:10:47 PM · #293

Originally posted by RonB:

The big difference is that when scientific conclusions are shown to be unprovEN ( not unprovABLE ), the defenders of science refuse to acknowledge that fact.

I AM actually a scientist, so Iâ��m fairly well positioned to answer this. This is also why am I so embroiled in this debate, as to me, religion is the enemy of reason. You do not understand scientific thought. You say "defenders of science" like itâ��s a bad thing? I am pretty sure medicine owes a bit more to science than god. Did God help get man to the moon (cue the conspiracy theorists!), when you are in a plane is that due to science or god?

I, like ANY scientist strives for the truth. If something is shown to be different, proven to me, I will accept it until a better theory is revealed. If Evolution is proven wrong, I honestly wouldn't care, because it would have to be replaced by another robust theory. I don't think thatâ��s going to happen mind you...

We are now getting into the realm of philosophy when we talk about truth. I would really like you read the essay "What is true". It covers the exactly this area, it starts:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing. This has never struck me as a particularly profound or wise remark, but it comes into its own when that little learning is in philosophy. A scientist who has the temerity to utter the t-word--true--is likely to encounter philosophical heckling..."

11/15/2007 02:30:38 PM · #294

Originally posted by cheekymunky:

Originally posted by RonB:

The big difference is that when scientific conclusions are shown to be unprovEN ( not unprovABLE ), the defenders of science refuse to acknowledge that fact.

I AM actually a scientist, so Iâ��m fairly well positioned to answer this. This is also why am I so embroiled in this debate, as to me, religion is the enemy of reason. You do not understand scientific thought. You say "defenders of science" like itâ��s a bad thing? I am pretty sure medicine owes a bit more to science than god. Did God help get man to the moon (cue the conspiracy theorists!), when you are in a plane is that due to science or god?

I, like ANY scientist strives for the truth. If something is shown to be different, proven to me, I will accept it until a better theory is revealed. If Evolution is proven wrong, I honestly wouldn't care, because it would have to be replaced by another robust theory. I don't think thatâ��s going to happen mind you...

We are now getting into the realm of philosophy when we talk about truth. I would really like you read the essay "What is true". It covers the exactly this area, it starts:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing. This has never struck me as a particularly profound or wise remark, but it comes into its own when that little learning is in philosophy. A scientist who has the temerity to utter the t-word--true--is likely to encounter philosophical heckling..."

I have other things to attend to right now, but I did a quick read of Dawkins treatise. It strikes me that HE is quite guilty of the very things that he condemns in others. If time permits, I'll pull a few examples of just where and how later.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/15/2007 02:35:04 PM · #295

Originally posted by cheekymunky:

I AM actually a scientist....If something is shown to be different, proven to me, I will accept it until a better theory is revealed. If Evolution is proven wrong, I honestly wouldn't care, because it would have to be replaced by another robust theory.

This is it pretty much in a nutshell. It also illustrates that it is actually creationists who do the ridiculing, NOT anyone else, when they have the temerity to suggest that empirical data somehow needs to be "believed in" as though it were an article faith, instead of just a collection of data that merely exists as a matter of course. It is when creationists heckle the scientifc community for merely reporting the result of decades of valid scientific research that the REAL insults start, the insults of words and the insult to intelligence.

It is not enough to simply say, "Well, these are matters of belief, and therefore we need to let creationists say what they will, and have their belief." No. Creationism, as it turns out, is a dangerous affront to reason. It absolutely must be confronted where it is found, even here. There need be no niceties and no dancing around the issues, and if feelings are hurt in the process, perhaps an analysis of why creationism is vehemently opposed should be undertaken.

Flash

Nikon D700

11/15/2007 02:40:44 PM · #296

Originally posted by jhonan:

Originally posted by RonB:
For all you know, the reason he let that grenade be tossed, and let it explode, is because he KNEW that if He didn't, that the kids who were on that toboggan would have grown up and carried, and detonated, a suitcase nuclear device in Times Square.

Ah. So God only looks after the USA?

You have read something into this that I indeed do not. The reference to Times Square is IMO simply a location on the world map and not indicative of any particular preference of God's - nor do I believe that RonB intended it as such.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/15/2007 02:49:37 PM · #297

Originally posted by Louis:

Creationism, as it turns out, is a dangerous affront to reason. It absolutely must be confronted where it is found, even here. There need be no niceties and no dancing around the issues, and if feelings are hurt in the process, perhaps an analysis of why creationism is vehemently opposed should be undertaken.

The "vehement opposition" actually surprised me. I had taken you for a bit more openminded. I do not see Creationism as a dangerous afront to reason. It is reason that ultimately landed me where I'm at.

I have yet to read a single argument/critique of the Bible/Theology that I did not at one time hold. Some of the questions being asked here, I do not have specific logical answers for. Especially in a literal context. I am comfortable with where my quest for truth ended. I hope that you find a similar solace in your quest.

11/15/2007 03:35:49 PM · #298

Originally posted by cheekymunky:

Should I give more credibility to you as a scientist than, to say, geneticist Dr. James Allen, Ph.D., who is a creationist? Or to plant physiologist David Catchpoole, B.Ag.Sc. (Hons), Ph.D., who is also a creationist? Or to molecular biologist Dr Dudley Eirich (Ph.D), who is also a creationist? Are you implying that THEY are not fairly well positioned to answer this?

Originally posted by cheekymunky:

This is also why am I so embroiled in this debate, as to me, religion is the enemy of reason. You do not understand scientific thought.

Perhaps I don't, but do you hold that those I've named and thousands more do not understand scientific thought, as well?

Originally posted by cheekymunky:

You say "defenders of science" like itâ��s a bad thing? I am pretty sure medicine owes a bit more to science than god.

Does it? Who were the "fathers" of modern medicine? Were they all atheists? From whence did they derive their insight?

Originally posted by cheekymunky:

Did God help get man to the moon (cue the conspiracy theorists!), when you are in a plane is that due to science or god?

What holds the nucleus of an atom together? What, exactly IS the "strong force" ( hint, In HIM all things hold together )? What, exactly IS matter ( as opposed to "dark" matter ) ( hint: that which is seen is made from that which is not seen ). God.

Originally posted by cheekymunky:

I, like ANY scientist strives for the truth. If something is shown to be different, proven to me, I will accept it until a better theory is revealed. If Evolution is proven wrong, I honestly wouldn't care, because it would have to be replaced by another robust theory. I don't think thatâ��s going to happen mind you...

Ahh. Your clever, young man, very clever, but it's (robust) theories all the way down.

11/15/2007 03:57:53 PM · #299

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I, like ANY scientist strives for the truth. If something is shown to be different, proven to me, I will accept it until a better theory is revealed. If Evolution is proven wrong, I honestly wouldn't care, because it would have to be replaced by another robust theory. I don't think thatâ��s going to happen mind you...

Ahh. Your clever, young man, very clever, but it's (robust) theories all the way down.

That's absolutely correct!

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts."

Thus, robust scientific theories are also known as facts... all the way down. Very good, Ron.