Natural Theology?

[justaname]

It shows that God created a universe where things work and develop on their own, without need for His constant tinkering. Genesis depicts God letting the earth "bring forth" things, which is consistent with what we find in His creation. Species evolve, stars form, mountains rise, rivers flow....all on their own because that's how God created things.


It's not merely a matter of studying nature and concluding "God created everything". All of us here already believed that going in. Do we want to know how things work? Do we allow what we learn to inform our reading of scripture?

RIver,

Just a comment on this last bit. It is all a matter of starting points, rather than concluding points. I know many here like to believe they are the proper and right interpreter of Scripture. In this their arrogance influences their conclusions with science. Just as many scientists, in their arrogance of atheism, have conclusions with Scripture. This is why worldview is so important.

So then to your final question. History has proven that we do allow science to inform or interpretation of scripture. Most do believe the earth revolves around the sun, rather than the sun rising and setting. The difficulty though begins at how far do we allow this to happen?

Example: The naturalistic perspective for many in scientific observation begins from an atheistic or at least agnostic position. If then the conclusions of these "scientific" observations inform us there is no resurrection, are we to believe science over Scripture? Are we to also believe God does not supernaturally intercede in human affairs ever? So then must we as Christians set aside our worldview to be scientists? Must we become atheists or at least agnostic to properly preform scientific observation? Then the question deepens that if we begin with the premise of atheistic observation and hold to atheistic constraints within our observations what other conclusion would we arrive at than an atheistic one?

 

[justaname]

Here is the article that OzSpen was talking about that I forgot to quote. http://evidenceandanswers.org/article/truth-absolute-or-relative/

Read this and let's talk about it.

The issue here is not all agree on the truths that are absolute. Practically speaking we are all fallible humans thereby we cannot objectively contemplate anything. Everything we perceive is subject to the human experience bringing our truths to relatively. This does not mean though that all truth is relative, rather personal perception of truth is relative to the person. Idealistically and objectively all truth is absolute, yet practically from the human perspective we are relative creatures. Hence the importance of needing to be in a proper relationship with the one true God. I personally believe the truth of Scripture, yet I can not force this truth on anyone, no matter how absolute it is. Only God who is Truth and absolute can do such a thing. God is the Ideal and Perfect with the only view of objective truth. We as humans can only discuss what we perceive as truth.

 

[River Jordan]

No we allow our reading of scripture to inform us of the truth and if that truth is contrary to what science tells us, then science is wrong.
This is an issue that you obviously do not get nor agree with.

I sure don't agree with it. That's exactly the sort of thinking that caused the Galileo embarrassment.

 

[River Jordan]

Just because stars form, mountains rise and rivers flow does not show or prove that God does not have a hand in it.

Agreed.

The key word here is Causes. God Caused all of what we see to come about. We as his creation can discover his wonders and marvel at what he has done.

We agree again.

 

[TravisT]

The issue here is not all agree on the truths that are absolute. Practically speaking we are all fallible humans thereby we cannot objectively contemplate anything. Everything we perceive is subject to the human experience bringing our truths to relatively. This does not mean though that all truth is relative, rather personal perception of truth is relative to the person. Idealistically and objectively all truth is absolute, yet practically from the human perspective we are relative creatures. Hence the importance of needing to be in a proper relationship with the one true God. I personally believe the truth of Scripture, yet I can not force this truth on anyone, no matter how absolute it is. Only God who is Truth and absolute can do such a thing. God is the Ideal and Perfect with the only view of objective truth. We as humans can only discuss what we perceive as truth.

justaname,

I am not sure I follow your logic here. So are you saying that there is absolute truth but we as finite beings do not know it absolutely? if so I agree with you. And the first principles of logic are undeniable truths. I think you point about "everything we perceive is subject to the human experience bringing our truths to relatively" is misguided. I could ask you are you absolutely sure that everything we perceive is subject to the human experience bringing our truths to relatively?

 

[TravisT]

RJ,

I think we agree on a lot of things. Please do not feel like I am trying to attack you or discredit your thoughts.

 

[River Jordan]

Just a comment on this last bit. It is all a matter of starting points, rather than concluding points. I know many here like to believe they are the proper and right interpreter of Scripture. In this their arrogance influences their conclusions with science. Just as many scientists, in their arrogance of atheism, have conclusions with Scripture. This is why worldview is so important.

In general, I agree.

So then to your final question. History has proven that we do allow science to inform or interpretation of scripture. Most do believe the earth revolves around the sun, rather than the sun rising and setting. The difficulty though begins at how far do we allow this to happen?

Yep, where we draw that line is likely a personal choice.

Example: The naturalistic perspective for many in scientific observation begins from an atheistic or at least agnostic position.

You're confusing metaphysical naturalism ("there is no God") with methodological naturalism ("if a God exists, it can't be tested, so is outside of science"). Science operates according to the latter, and has nothing to do with the former.

If then the conclusions of these "scientific" observations inform us there is no resurrection, are we to believe science over Scripture? Are we to also believe God does not supernaturally intercede in human affairs ever?

Those aren't scientifically testable questions. God, being omnipotent, can do absolutely anything. That includes the ability to do something supernaturally but make it appear as if it happened naturally, or anything else imaginable.

So then must we as Christians set aside our worldview to be scientists? Must we become atheists or at least agnostic to properly preform scientific observation?

Of course not. Again, don't confuse metaphysical naturalism with methodological naturalism.

Then the question deepens that if we begin with the premise of atheistic observation and hold to atheistic constraints within our observations what other conclusion would we arrive at than an atheistic one?

See above.

 

[River Jordan]

RJ,

I think we agree on a lot of things. Please do not feel like I am trying to attack you or discredit your thoughts.

No worries!

 

[StanJ]

I sure don't agree with it. That's exactly the sort of thinking that caused the Galileo embarrassment.

Well then you can explain yourself to God when you see Him.

Galileo was not the problem, the RCC was. They did not represent the majority of Christianity at that time which was in the mid 1600s.

Around 330 BC, Aristotle maintained on the basis of physical theory and observational evidence that the Earth was spherical, and reported on an estimate on the circumference. The Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes. (Wikipedia)

 

[TravisT]

We have some good conversations going on. Lets keep it up. This is how we edify one another.

 

[StanJ]

Heb 6:7-8
Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

Here we find a view of nature that is used to depict a spiritual law.

 

[justaname]

In general, I agree.


Yep, where we draw that line is likely a personal choice.


You're confusing metaphysical naturalism ("there is no God") with methodological naturalism ("if a God exists, it can't be tested, so is outside of science"). Science operates according to the latter, and has nothing to do with the former.


Those aren't scientifically testable questions. God, being omnipotent, can do absolutely anything. That includes the ability to do something supernaturally but make it appear as if it happened naturally, or anything else imaginable.


Of course not. Again, don't confuse metaphysical naturalism with methodological naturalism.


See above.

I agree with your statements concerning these distinctions. Yet from a practical standpoint methodological naturalism works within the confines of metaphysical naturalism not supernaturalism thereby most science necessarily sets aside the Christian worldview. Hence starting points...

Please do not misunderstand me. We fallible humans are merely interpreting what we observe. We must have a basis from which to form theory without attributing arbitrarily, rather properly to its process as best as we can trace. Thus science is observable. Again where does one draw the line while holding to more than observable and repeatable truths? We do know not all things are observable and or repeatable, (Ideas, concepts, theories, philosophies) thereby science must come to agreement with philosophy and it did, metaphysical naturalism.

 

[justaname]

justaname,

I am not sure I follow your logic here. So are you saying that there is absolute truth but we as finite beings do not know it absolutely? if so I agree with you. And the first principles of logic are undeniable truths. I think you point about "everything we perceive is subject to the human experience bringing our truths to relatively" is misguided. I could ask you are you absolutely sure that everything we perceive is subject to the human experience bringing our truths to relatively?

According to your question we agree. This question although then illustrates my position you percieve is misguided.

As humans we must interpret everything we perceive. This we base on our experience, or said differently upon what we have determined as prior truths. Take language for example; we have to take for granted everything we express or receive in communication follows an agreed upon set of definitions while still contextually interpreting what is being communicated. Sometimes we need clarification because there can be more than one definition for words. Other times verbal or written communication might appear vague where clarification is needed. Ultimately everything we perceive must be processed though our brains and or minds. Thus from our perspective truth can only be relative to the process of our minds. Everything we perceive is subjective due to our 3 deminsional reality and our experience within that reality because we exist and experience within this reality. We as the creature are subject in creation and the laws governing it, operating individually and often disagreeing, while only God is objective. This does nothing to negate absolute truths or universal truths, this only describes the human condition relative to these truths.

 

[justaname]

From the grounding point of common grace we have natural theology. I feel it is the work of Christians that are within the sphere of working science that must embrace their Christian worldview, denying the restraints of metaphysical naturalism, to cultivate and express the natural theology that underpins the creation. As expressed the scientist must stand holding Scripture as ultimate, but interpretation as fallible.

Take for example the description of a world wide flood. If science were to embrace such a concept, the geological perception would be dramatically different. This then would have a snowball effect cascading into various fields of science. Without question there is evidence for such an event.

You might have to do some digging with this link, yet I have met this x-evolution scientist personally.

http://www.creationworldview.org/aboutus.asp

Then watch this video:

http://www.creationworldview.org/did-you-know/

 

[River Jordan]

Galileo was not the problem, the RCC was. They did not represent the majority of Christianity at that time which was in the mid 1600s.

Around 330 BC, Aristotle maintained on the basis of physical theory and observational evidence that the Earth was spherical, and reported on an estimate on the circumference. The Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes. (Wikipedia)

You're missing the point. The RCC was so absolutely sure they had the proper interpretation of scripture, they persecuted any scientist who reached conclusions that contradicted those interpretations.

From what I've seen, you've adopted the same mindset (although without the authority to actually persecute anyone).

 

[River Jordan]

I agree with your statements concerning these distinctions. Yet from a practical standpoint methodological naturalism works within the confines of metaphysical naturalism not supernaturalism thereby most science necessarily sets aside the Christian worldview. Hence starting points...

No, not really. Again, metaphysical naturalism is a philosophical position that says "there is no supernatural anything". Methodological naturalism is an operational framework that takes no position on the existence of the supernatural one way or the other, and merely says "only natural, testable explanations are allowed within this framework" (which makes sense, because the supernatural is not scientifically testable).

While it would be a contradiction for a Christian to adopt metaphysical naturalism, there is absolutely nothing that prevents a Christian from using methodological naturalism in everyday life. And in fact, we do. When your car breaks down or your computer acts up, do you immediately look for supernatural causes and solutions? Or do you fix it assuming natural causes, or take it to someone who assumes natural causes?

Please do not misunderstand me. We fallible humans are merely interpreting what we observe. We must have a basis from which to form theory without attributing arbitrarily, rather properly to its process as best as we can trace. Thus science is observable. Again where does one draw the line while holding to more than observable and repeatable truths? We do know not all things are observable and or repeatable, (Ideas, concepts, theories, philosophies) thereby science must come to agreement with philosophy and it did, metaphysical naturalism.

If that were true, then all theists would be unable to participate in science.

 

[River Jordan]

From the grounding point of common grace we have natural theology. I feel it is the work of Christians that are within the sphere of working science that must embrace their Christian worldview, denying the restraints of metaphysical naturalism, to cultivate and express the natural theology that underpins the creation. As expressed the scientist must stand holding Scripture as ultimate, but interpretation as fallible.

Take for example the description of a world wide flood. If science were to embrace such a concept, the geological perception would be dramatically different. This then would have a snowball effect cascading into various fields of science.

Actually if you look at the history of geology, it stated with Christian geologists in Europe assuming a global, Biblical flood. But around the mid-late 1700's and on into the early 1800's, as more evidence was collected these Bible-believing Christian scientists eventually dropped the Biblical flood for no other reason than it was directly contradicted by all the evidence they were seeing.

Without question there is evidence for such an event.

No, not at all. I know it's difficult for some Christians to accept, but there's a good reason no scientific organization, university, or private industry utilizes the Biblical flood model, and it's not due to some grand anti-Christian conspiracy, mandated orthodoxy, or anything like that. It really is nothing more than the simple fact that there is no evidence for a recent global flood, and there is actually a huge amount of evidence that directly contradicts it.

Then watch this video:

http://www.creationworldview.org/did-you-know/

Before I spend too much time on this, I have to ask if you're truly interested in going over the contents of that video. I watched it and I have a lot to say about it, but I'm reluctant to take the time to go over it if no one is really interested.

 

[StanJ]

You're missing the point. The RCC was so absolutely sure they had the proper interpretation of scripture, they persecuted any scientist who reached conclusions that contradicted those interpretations.
From what I've seen, you've adopted the same mindset (although without the authority to actually persecute anyone).

Not at all, what I said is exactly the point.
That you think my support of the Bible, which Holy/wholly truth, and interpret that to be persecution towards you is very telling.
You have no idea what true persecution really is. It's not a matter of what you learn in the world, it's a matter of what you learn from the word of God. In my opinion you have rejected the word of God and have accepted the word of erroneous science. The Bible tells us that knowledge will one day cease, but the word of God will endure forever.

 

[lforrest]

Heb 6:7-8
Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

Here we find a view of nature that is used to depict a spiritual law.

Look at the depiction of the wheat and tares. Some of the properties of these plants are quite interesting.

Many parables hold deeper meaning that has been lost because common knowledge has changed.

 

[StanJ]

Look at the depiction of the wheat and tares. Some of the properties of these plants are quite interesting.

Many parables hold deeper meaning that has been lost because common knowledge has changed.

You're probably right because we have gone from a totally agrarian society to an almost totally industrial society. Farmers would know better or at least understand these principles better than most of us who live in the big cities.