Posted on 02/07/2013 6:26:00 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Just agreeing with the Pope whe he said "The Bible isn't meant to be a manual of natural science," the pope told the estimated 5,000 visitors and pilgrims gathered for his audience. "Instead it is meant to make understandable the authentic and deep truth of all things," he said.
Well, I agree that the Bible isn’t meant to be that either, that’s not where I have any bone of contention to pick with his statements.
The problem that I have with his statement is that it isn’t intellectually consistent. First of all, the statement about it not being a science manual is simply a handwave. By making that statement, he is acknowledging that he knows the question is directed towards the attacks on the authenticity of the Bible with regards to claimed discrepancies with science, but he doesn’t actually speak of anything relevant to the controversy. So, that right there is something of an intellectual dodge.
However, just saying that the Bible isn’t a scientific document really doesn’t resolve anything as regards to the controversy. Science is simply a method of attempting to determine the truth about reality and the world around us, and people have used this method, and the supposed facts produced by it, to contradict apparently factual statements in the Bible. The Bible doesn’t need to be a scientific document to make factually authoritative statements, and it indeed makes a great many such statements. So, if there is a contradiction between the two sets of “facts”, then it can’t be resolved by saying “the Bible isn’t science”. I mean, the story of Paul Bunyan is not science either, but it doesn’t need to be in order for science to rule it implausible.
Regardless, he goes on to speak of the strictly spiritual side of the Genesis stories, with no regard to the historical and factual sides. He is a Biblical scholar, so he has no ignorance of the fact that most of the Bible contains multiple aspects to any particular passage, and so the fact that Genesis contains many spiritual implications does nothing to demonstrate for or against a historical interpretation.
In fact, some of his statements on the spiritual interpretation of Genesis are implicitly rebuking a historical interpretation, such as his statement that the Serpent represents something other than Satan. It may well be true that their is a symbolism inherent besides that of Satan, but we know from the New Testament in no uncertain terms that the Serpent is in fact primarily a representation of Satan. So, he is discussing what are in fact secondary symbolisms at best, to divert attention away from the primary meanings of the text. This is why I said he’s treating Genesis as a fairy tale, with literal meanings that can be discarded when inconvenient, in favor of the more convenient spiritual interpretations.
Yet, he then goes on to say that this document is designed to convey authentic truth. Well, that is not a consistent position, since the document represents itself to us as a historical document, as much as any of the other historical narratives in the Bible do. So, if it is an allegory that is not meant to be taken as historical, then it is fundamentally dishonest, which contradicts the idea that it is meant to convey the truth.
For example, say I find out that Muhammed never existed as a real person, and none of the events written about him in the Koran actually happened. Now, if I believed all of that was a fiction, and I knew that the Koran presented it as historical truth, then I would be intellectually inconsistent, and possibly dishonest myself, if I were to say that the Koran was meant to convey fundamental truth to people.
And, I think it's an obvious corollary that, when we use it as such we are both reducing it's value and using it incorrectly.
I am not anti science and I suppose you've found the right word, Scientism, to describe what I am anti to.
The over reaching claims of scientists, like the religious leaders, are appalling and so few leaders are really willing to defend their religion against the pseudoscience of today that it seems odd when any do.
Getting back to the subject of this thread....Benedict has made the supernatural the Bible describes subject to scientific definition.
Some sort of creature became human at what point does Benedict say? And is this what the Bible allegorises into Adam being created?
The Bible is the handbook of Christian belief yet so few Christian leaders are willing to make more than a half hearted defence of it.
I am not anti science and I suppose you've found the right word, Scientism, to describe what I am anti to.
A large proportion of the perceived battle between religion and science is based on this. The other proportion is in category errors: using science to infer theology or using theology to derive science.
Benedict has made the supernatural the Bible describes subject to scientific definition.
This would be incorrect thinking. The supernatural, by definition, is outside science not subject to it.
Some sort of creature became human at what point does Benedict say?
If you are asking view on the specifics of any theory or hypothesis involving biogenesis or similar topic, Pope Benedict is not a scientist; He's not going to make the same category error in the opposite direction.
He certainly does speak to inferences from science that violate the truth as revealed by God to His Church.
He is very qualified to discuss the philosophy of science and meta-physics. This concerns epistemology, what can be known by what methods; and, logic/reason - its proper use and misuse. He teaches that reason and science are perfected by faith, and has strongly emphasized relativism as the great threat of our age.
Specifically to your question, the Church teaching is probably best found in Humani Generis. Here you can see that the allegory reading of scripture is only one sense of scripture and it has its limits:
For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament.Adam and Eve were real people, unique, who existed and are the parents of all humans. They were created in the image of God as are we all.
Just to clarify..."printed" form, maybe, but it has been in written form from the time of Moses (Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE). The Book of Job has even been thought to be written earlier than the Pentateuch/Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament called the Books of Moses). The entire Old Testament was completed, written and copied by hand by the fourth century B.C. and these writings were prevalent in the Jewish temples and every synagogue.
All of the New Testament was entirely written and copied by the end of the first century A.D. There are THOUSANDS of fragments of these writings in museums and collections. So, just because the printing press wasn't around until the 1500's doesn't mean the Bible was not available in a readable format way before then.
“Who is so foolish as to think that God’s power stops at the casino door?”
Well, are they more foolish than those who think that God’s power extends only to the casino floor? After all, that’s what the “guided evolution” folks propose. God might influence the dice rolls, but that’s it, everything else is purely natural causes.
Uh, you got it backwards...I have much more faith in the words of God than I do the theories of scientists...True science will line up with the bible, not oppose it...
Well other than creating the laws of reality, setting up the initial conditions and being in control of everything either determined by natural laws OR subject to randomness!
If you built the casino, invented the games AND know beforehand the amount of each bet and how it will turn out, then it could hardly be said that your power is somehow limited to randomness.
In other words, nuclear physics isn't "true science" because the concept of radioactive decay and our measurements of its processes contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible.
The scientific theories that you dismiss can be tested with observation and measurement. Some stand, others fall (flogiston and Lamarckian inheritance don't have many followers these days). The claims of Biblical literalists never fall because those who adhere to them are completely impervious to any fact or observation that contradicts them.
Yes, I see your point, but then that is really not compatible with the scientific theory of evolution, since scientists can’t attribute any of the things you cite to supernatural forces. So you’re still basically saying that the scientists are wrong, you are just agreeing with them on a few more things than some other creationists do.
Sure it is compatible and Biblical. Creationists have a huge blind spot about randomness based upon ignorance of the Bible.
Evolution happens via natural selection of genetic variation. Genetic variation is created via random errors in copying DNA.
It is the Bible, not science, that makes the case that God controls random events.
Well conceptualized then, and now.
“The Bible isn’t meant to be a manual of natural science”
The Pope is Catholic, news at eleven.
“Creationists have a huge blind spot about randomness based upon ignorance of the Bible.”
Not in my experience they don’t.
“Evolution happens via natural selection of genetic variation. Genetic variation is created via random errors in copying DNA.”
Yes of course, pretty much everyone understands that, I hope.
“It is the Bible, not science, that makes the case that God controls random events.”
Yes, and that is exactly where the problem of incompatibility comes in. The theory of evolution, and naturalistic science as a whole, doesn’t allow any room for God controlling random events. They can’t ascribe supernatural causes to anything, random or not. So, if you say that God controls the random mutations, then you do not believe in the standard theory of Evolution.
As a Christian I have no problem with acknowledging that God is in control of random events - something that creationists have a very hard time acknowledging - as you seem to be - it is a huge blind spot based upon ignorance of the Bible.
You also seem to have a huge blind spot in that one can accept a scientific theory and have faith in God, without that scientific theory ascribing any action to supernatural causation.
Newton didn't ascribe supernatural causation to Gravity - yet he knew that it all unfolded according to God's plan.
One need not have faith that God created the law of universal gravitational attraction of mass to be a scientist who knows understands and utilizes the theory.
Similarly one need not have faith that God is in control of random events in order to be a scientist who knows understand and utilizes the theory of evolution.
“As a scientist I have no problem with acknowledging that radioactive decay is random, that mutations are random, that quantum mechanics are probabilistic/random.”
Yes, but I think you are confusing random or probabilistic with the supernatural. Just because a cause may be random, does not make it compatible with a supernatural cause. It’s still, in the view of science, a purely naturalistic cause, no matter how random it is.
“As a Christian I have no problem with acknowledging that God is in control of random events - something that creationists have a very hard time acknowledging - as you seem to be - it is a huge blind spot based upon ignorance of the Bible.”
As I seem to be? How exactly? Did I ever say anything like that? God is in control of everything, short of human free will, and even that is only because He chooses to allow us free will. I’ve never seen any Christian betray the kind of bias that you keep talking about, so I really don’t know where you are getting this idea from.
“You also seem to have a huge blind spot in that one can accept a scientific theory and have faith in God, without that scientific theory ascribing any action to supernatural causation.”
No, I have no problem with that, and again, I have no idea where you get that from. I believe in a great many scientific theories and none of them ascribe any action to supernatural causation.
“Newton didn’t ascribe supernatural causation to Gravity - yet he knew that it all unfolded according to God’s plan.”
There’s a distinct difference there. Newton didn’t believe that God was “guiding” objects to fall to Earth through natural forces, as guided evolution proponents believe. Newton’s situation requires no active involvement or participation by a supernatural entity, short of writing the laws of physics initially, while guided evolution does require such a thing.
“Similarly one need not have faith that God is in control of random events in order to be a scientist who knows understand and utilizes the theory of evolution.”
No, you don’t, but I still think that you’re kidding yourself if you think that what you believe would be acknowledged as the same theory by mainstream scientists.
God doesn’t need supernatural intervention to know beforehand and be in control of every dice roll.
“The dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord”
Evolution functions according to natural causes, errors in DNA polymerase, spontaneous mutations in germ line cells, etc; and the natural selection that causes some of these variations to have greater or lesser reproductive success.
Saying that mutations arise in a random fashion in no way removes God as knowing beforhand what the change would be and being in absolute control - without any sort of supernatural causation or intervention necessary.
The dichotomy you are attempting to set up exists only in those who cannot acknowledge that there is no conflict between faith in God and acceptance of scientific theories.
Faith that evolution unfolded according to God’s will in no way is ascribing supernatural “guiding” or causation to evolution - any more than faith that the universe obeying gravity unfolded according to God’s will is ascrbing supernatural “guiding” or causation to gravity.
“No, it is you who is attempting to conflate randomness with supernatural action.”
I really don’t think so. I’m well aware of the difference between those two concepts.
“Saying that mutations arise in a random fashion in no way removes God as knowing beforhand what the change would be and being in absolute control - without any sort of supernatural causation or intervention necessary.”
No, saying that mutations function that way does not, however naturalistic science does remove that possibility. You can’t sit here and say that every random event in the universe happens exactly as God planned it, in such away as to arrive at a predetermined result, and say that is a view that is consistent with naturalistic science, because it is not. You are basically transforming, through a logical postulate, probabilistic forces into deterministic ones. You are saying that the forces which naturalistic science, through experiment, has observed to be random are not truly random, for random processes do not result in predetermined outcomes, unless you want to start delving into special cases like symmetry breaking.
What you are effectively doing is saying that a random process only seems random, because we, as humans, do not have the capacity to detect or comprehend all the variables which determine its outcome. If we did, then we would be able to predict it with the same accuracy that we can predict well understood probabilistic processes. Now, this might be a correct assertion, I’ll grant you that, but it is not an assertion that lines up with mainstream science.
So in reality, unlike the type of guided evolution believers who posit discreet instances of supernatural intervention to explain the “guiding”, who are only creating a hybrid theory of evolution, you are actually creating a hybrid theory of science in general. After all, if processes worked the way that you think, it would have ramifications on pretty much every scientific theory, and not just evolution.
“The dichotomy you are attempting to set up exists only in those who cannot acknowledge that there is no conflict between faith in God and acceptance of scientific theories.”
Well, I do acknowledge that you can have faith in God and still accept scientific theories, so I think that statement is simply hogwash.
“Faith that evolution unfolded according to God’s will in no way is ascribing supernatural “guiding” or causation to evolution - any more than faith that the universe obeying gravity unfolded according to God’s will is ascrbing supernatural “guiding” or causation to gravity.”
Of course it is, you just ascribed to that exact thing in that very sentence:
“evolution unfolded according to God’s will”
That is plainly a statement of supernatural causation. There is no plausible way to deny it, unless you say God is not supernatural, or His willing something is not a cause.
You’re simply playing with semantics here. It seems you don’t like the term “guiding”, but you are perfectly happy to call it “willing”. Fine, I’ll use your terms. You believe in “God-Willed Evolution”, not the standard Theory of Evolution as proposed by naturalistic science.
One either has faith that God is in control of random events (as the Bible says He does), or one doesn’t.
That is completely different than accepting the physical mechanisms that cause mutations and how they contribute to evolution.
The physical mechanism is the same - if you think God is in control or you reject that view.
My faith is not the same as the scientific theory; but as creationists cannot seem to seperate the two distinct and absolutely seperate concepts; no wonder you are having so much difficulty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.