22 Feb 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, more accurately, science uses methodologies. Put the other way makes it sound as though there is but one school of thought relative to how science makes determinations regarding reality.
No, science is a methodology for searching for truth. There is no reason to restrict it to the material universe. The only possible reason for not applying scientific principles to the study of God is if for some reason he cannot be studied objectively.
Whether or not you think science is a good methodology or the best methodology is another matter, but you would be something of a hypocrite to accept it only where it suits you.
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by whodeyI find your materialistic and selfish beliefs rather odd coming from someone claiming to be a Christian. Why do you believe that everyone must be motivated by money and power? Look around you. Lots of people give their time and money very unselfishly and often for reasons other than Christianity. Are they all 'influenced by God'? Can nobody claim good works for themselves?
What I am taken back by are life changing revelations and not just supposed revelations that tend to inhance ones current position. Case in point is Paul and his encounter on the road to Damascus. Here we had a Jew whose life long work was persecuting the church and killing Christians before he left and then a polar opposite when he entered Damascus. What ...[text shortened]... erving and the other dedicated to self service. Which man do you think was influenced by God?
I doubt that either of the people you mention knew the hour of their death, so I wonder what relevance it has for your comparison.
22 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOK, let me change it to 'science is methodology' or we could go with Wikipedia which starts off with:
Well, more accurately, [b]science uses methodologies. Put the other way makes it sound as though there is but one school of thought relative to how science makes determinations regarding reality.[/b]
"Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" ) is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice."
It then goes on to talk about Scientific Method as being the more modern most common use of the term.
However, I don't believe whodey has a leg to stand on when he claims that science is restricted to the material universe.
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadOkay, I'm not insisting on chasing the distinctions that exist in the scientific methods; we can keep on topic by discussing whether or not God is subject to (or can be the subject of) man's science experiments.
OK, let me change it to 'science is methodology' or we could go with Wikipedia which starts off with:
"Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" ) is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a ...[text shortened]... has a leg to stand on when he claims that science is restricted to the material universe.
I don't want to speak for him, but I think what whodey is getting at is that there exists a mountain of objective, verifiable data which corroborates various situations reported on in the Bible. As such, these incidents pass any test employed by any of the scientific methods--- except, of course, repeatability.
That being said, no matter what the method employed, science is first and foremost a man-centered effort. Beginning with man, he gathers information (whether or not it is pertinent, complete or accurate is another story), he organizes this gathering (again, completely dependent upon the adequacy of his structuring, including valuing, prioritizing, and other aspects of accuracy), attempts to repeat his idea about the topic, and, at some point, concludes something about the data collected.
All of this 'works' with varying degrees of success within the scope of what exists in our little playground (known universe). As good as we are, however, there is more that we don't know within the playground than that which do know. Progress is being made, to be sure. But how are we to apply any scientific method to that which exists outside of the playground? It's simply impossible... until such time as that which exists outside breaks through into our realm. If man could promote himself into the realm of God, revelation wouldn't be necessary: as with science, man could simply rely on his own efforts in order to gain an understanding of God.
Science can only be applied in limited situations. Something out of reach requires revelation.
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by rwingettI don't think you're thinking this through completely.
And revelation is entirely subjective.
God splits open the sky, blasts through the clouds and vanquishes all those who set themselves against Him. You observe it. Your observation is subjective, true. Is the revelation of His appearance subjective, objective, or something else?
22 Feb 10
2 edits
Listen up modern man.
You may put down faith. You may pity faith. You may scoff at faith or sneer at faith. You may feel sorry for faith and treat faith as a poor stepchild of humanity.
You may belittle faith and lament that it is unrealiable and a poor pitiful substitute for scientific knowledge.
The interesting fact remains that the most powerful human personality ever to walk this planet, Jesus of Nazareth, taught that He accomplished everything He accomplised through faith. That is His faith in His Father.
Some of us just cannot ignore that fact. We respect and use whatever other avenues of finding truth there may be available to mankind. And we use them too. But we cannot easily dismiss the power of faith in God because of the impactof the personality of one Jesus Christ.
The very name is terrible in significance and in truth.
23 Feb 10
Originally posted by jaywillHold on a moment. Surely that 'interesting fact' only remains a fact as long as you have faith (that it is a fact).
You may put down faith. You may pity faith. You may scoff at faith or sneer at faith. You may feel sorry for faith and treat faith as a poor stepchild of humanity.
You may belittle faith and lament that it is unrealiable and a poor pitiful substitute for scientific knowledge.
The interesting fact remains that the most powerful human personality ever to walk this planet, [b]Jesus of Nazareth,.........[/b]
23 Feb 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou start off very well, but then you loose it along the way.
But how are we to apply any scientific method to that which exists outside of the playground? It's simply impossible... until such time as that which exists outside breaks through into our realm. If man could promote himself into the realm of God, revelation wouldn't be necessary: as with science, man could simply rely on his own efforts in order to gain ...[text shortened]... Science can only be applied in limited situations. Something out of reach requires revelation.
If something is beyond possible knowledge, then revelation isn't going to help is it?
If revelation helps, then it is not beyond possible knowledge.
Lets suppose whodeys claim is correct and science can only be used within the 'material universe'.
If there exists something that is not part of the 'material universe' then either:
1. It has an effect on the universe that follows a pattern - which could be studied through science - contradicting whodeys claim
or
2. It has an entirely random effect on the universe - and thus we don't really care.
or
3. It has no effect on the universe.
23 Feb 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf something is beyond possible knowledge, then revelation isn't going to help is it?
You start off very well, but then you loose it along the way.
If something is beyond possible knowledge, then revelation isn't going to help is it?
If revelation helps, then it is not beyond possible knowledge.
Lets suppose whodeys claim is correct and science can only be used within the 'material universe'.
If there exists something that is not par ...[text shortened]... on the universe - and thus we don't really care.
or
3. It has no effect on the universe.
If revelation helps, then it is not beyond possible knowledge.
I think I'm just not being specific enough. When I say 'beyond possible knowledge,' it is to mean beyond our ability to secure on our own. Knowledge acquired by man's efforts requires empirical and/or rational action. Anything that may exist beyond his ability to seize upon its truth through these actions requires something other, something outside of him and his efforts.
God can be known, but only through revelation. Once revealed, I suppose it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that we could then measure Him--- at least, in some regards. However, I think we'd end up with the same problems, only then we use different words. For instance, when we say that His days are without number, we could compare His with ours... except, unlike ours which have a start without an end, His have neither.
Better, we can measure His actions; after all, what is science, if not a measurement of God's creation? Other aspects of His measurable actions would include His interventions in history, inasmuch as any portion of His actions contain units known/used by man (e.g., three days in the grave, appeared before 500, and etc..).
If there exists something that is not part of the 'material universe' then either:
1. It has an effect on the universe that follows a pattern - which could be studied through science - contradicting whodeys claim
or
2. It has an entirely random effect on the universe - and thus we don't really care.
or
3. It has no effect on the universe.
I suppose we could say the 'effect which follows a pattern' is consistent with God's character and the science which tracks this is theology... but I don't think whodey was denying this science. He was using science in the normative sense of its modern iteration, i.e., natural science, which is only concerned with physical data.
23 Feb 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHObviously even revelation has problems in that area. If you cannot put any meaning to received revelation then it is useless ie his actual attributes remain unknown.
However, I think we'd end up with the same problems, only then we use different words. For instance, when we say that His days are without number, we could compare His with ours... except, unlike ours which have a start without an end, His have neither.
Better, we can measure His actions; after all, what is science, if not a measurement of God's creation? Other aspects of His measurable actions would include His interventions in history, inasmuch as any portion of His actions contain units known/used by man (e.g., three days in the grave, appeared before 500, and etc..).
The question then is whether those actions can tell us anything at all about the actor. It seems you think they can and whodey thinks they can't.
I suppose we could say the 'effect which follows a pattern' is consistent with God's character and the science which tracks this is theology... but I don't think whodey was denying this science. He was using science in the normative sense of its modern iteration, i.e., natural science, which is only concerned with physical data.
And I don't see why the study of the effects (which are presumably physical in nature) should remain the domain of theology.
23 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadObviously even revelation has problems in that area. If you cannot put any meaning to received revelation then it is useless ie his actual attributes remain unknown.
Obviously even revelation has problems in that area. If you cannot put any meaning to received revelation then it is useless ie his actual attributes remain unknown.
Better, we can measure His actions; after all, what is science, if not a measurement of God's creation? Other aspects of His measurable actions would include His interventions in histo e effects (which are presumably physical in nature) should remain the domain of theology.
Either unknown, or perhaps indescribable--- meaning 'our words plus more,' not simply 'beyond words.' The rare instances of joy we experience in this life time: the warmth of familial love, the ecstasy of rapturous sexual union, the sense of awe at the birth of our children are all examples of us, like cups, overflowing. Measurable? To a degree, yes, but then beyond that to overflowing.
Adam and the woman in the Garden were designed for that sensual overload, that constant bathing of love, both as a result of their measurable surroundings and the daily revelation of His person. Mystifyingly enough, they chose both some whispered-about unknown secret knowledge and the creation itself over God.
Again, I think you're drawing a conclusion about whodey's perspective that he doesn't mean to have drawn. From what I have read of his posts, he seems to be pointing out the inability of natural science to reveal anything about God. Once revealed, when revealed, natural science will have a field day... but will eventually fade away: who writes down recipes when the feast lay before them?
And I don't see why the study of the effects (which are presumably physical in nature) should remain the domain of theology.
Most likely, the repeatability of the revelation is the biggest obstacle.