« The True Story of Christian Missionaries | Main | Clarifying, Not Banning »

January 16, 2014

Comments

"That's because modern science is dominated by the philosophy of materialism, which rejects God."

Actually it's methodological naturalism, and it doesnt 'reject God'.

"It's not science itself that is in conflict with Christianity; it's the philosophy that is a prior conviction of the majority of scientists today"

Science isnt in conflict with religion at all - agreed. I lean towards non overlapping magisteria. The Catholic Church has understood this for centuries - the soul for instance; Catholic dogma does not invest the term with agency, i.e. the soul doesn't interact with the body. That does keep the issue entirely out of the realm of science.

But when people claim "biological organisms were designed, the designer is God" you get a collision - because that is directly in the realm of Scientific enquiry.

Vesalius provides us with an excellent example of the danger of dogma and uncritical thinking. Up to his time, Galenic thinking had predominated (for 1400 years give or take) and Vesalius basically showed that Galen was wrong - simply by thorough observation. He was criticised for a long time for daring to question the authority of Galen.

It's not science itself that is in conflict with Christianity; it's the philosophy that is a prior conviction of the majority of scientists today.

Yes, I would argue that science has indeed become a religion for many who would reject God.

But, what I wanted to highlight was that sometimes the Bible and science must necessarily be in conflict with each other. Why is that? It's because God, as the creator of all things "scientific," lies above and outside the bounds of science. He can do as He pleases.

Thus, when God spoke the universe into existence, gives it form, function, and organization, and creates life, that is very much outside the bounds of science and contrary to many things that might otherwise reside within it.

Or when God caused the sun to stand still for Joshua, yep, no scientific explanation there. Simply God showing his might and power and sovereignty over His creation.

Thus, I have no problem with some things in Christianity being in conflict with science, because the One True God is the author of and bigger than science.

"Or when God caused the sun to stand still for Joshua, yep, no scientific explanation there. Simply God showing his might and power and sovereignty over His creation"

Isn't it more likely that the story is exaggerated?

Of course there's no scientific explanation - you are suggesting that God stopped the earth spinning - which would be catastrophic for all life on earth.

So how did God do that?

Great Suprendo, I disagree that the body and the soul are completely apart. One with out the other is not true existence. You can't have full existence without a body, nor can you have full existence without something metaphysical beyond it. That's why we will be resurrected physically from the dead, and not just be souls that sit on clouds.

In regards to the aforementioned miracle, I am not sure that the language there might be figurative--it's a difficult passage. However, it would have been possible for God to do something like that by simply bringing the illusion to theoe in the battle that the sun was indeed still shining overhead, allowing them to continue to fight and win the battle. There would be no need to halt the spinning of the earth.

Hi JBerr

"I disagree that the body and the soul are completely apart."

Oh ok. I dont really understand it; that's just what I understand the Catholic Church's position to be.

"nor can you have full existence without something metaphysical beyond it"

I dont understand this part.

"it would have been possible for God to do something like that by simply bringing the illusion to theoe in the battle that the sun was indeed still shining overhead, allowing them to continue to fight and win the battle."

Oh ok. How?

TGS

>> Oh ok. How?

Hmmm. Possibilities. Possibilities. Let's offer this idea. What is an hour but the world turning at 15 degrees of its rotation. What if (and I grant this be speculation) the rate dropped to 12 degrees? The day would extend to a thirty hour day, granting six more hours of battle.

The point is that I would expect a constant speed of rotation. Any momentary slowing or speeding up of the process would be an act of divine intervention. Science could not detect such with its given methodology. And this, not the state of the miraculous, is at issue. JBerr was correct in his assertion that earth's spinning did not need to halt for this effect.

I posted to this point because I find the concepts of time and perception of time two fascinating concepts. I remember experimenting with diurnal rhythms in my classes. Simple matters as judging the lapsing of time, telling the person with the stopwatch when thirty seconds had elapsed, both in quiet mode and conversation mode (to prevent mental counting down). But to wait out five minutes when hurrying to accomplish as much as possible, or to engage in pleasant activity, or (worst part of the experiment) to watch the sweep-second hand do five orbits. How do we consciously speed up and slow down our own moments, or as a student once asked, "How can we get June-July-August to last as long as May?"

Suprendo, you ask good questions and offer decent insights. As the the "sun standing still" miracle, I guess it can be noted that we think so little on how the airplane circumvents the established laws of gravity. Is it so much for God to handle His creation in like manner?

The comments to this entry are closed.