Well, how about just read what I wrote? Here, I’ve highlighted it for you.
…the Book of His Works (THE NATURAL CREATION He left us which helps us understand what He has done in the past).
Are you familiar with the historical Two Books concept in Christian theology?
And here it is again, the typical dodge. Instead of addressing the issue and answering questions, you try to change the subject. The answer is no.
I can’t think of any offhand, but even if did my opinion would be irrelevant. Given you’re someone who didn’t even know humans were primates, perhaps you should spend more time actually learning some science before you try to have a conversation on these topics.
Yes, the problem is we don’t have two books.
People have stopped studying nature as creation long ago.
Those who do study nature nowadays don’t even acknowledge the existence of God/the action of God in nature in their studies.
So I ask again how do you have two books? What source do you depend on for information about the second book?
Because the natural creation still exists, and people are still gathering information about it.
A combination of personal observation, and scientific findings. Just like when it comes to the Book of God’s Words we depend on a combination of personal observation and textual critics, lexicographers, translators, historians, archaeologists, and a host of other professionals. That doesn’t mean commentaries are the Book of God’s Word, any more than science is the Book of God’s Work.
Should be obvious… no second book. Unless you radically alter what written revelation means.
It’s a fact. Nobody who studies nature today studies it as God’s creation. That’s the basic result of MN.
Sure. Buy they are gathering information and theorising on a foundation of MN (methodical naturalism). This cannot be directly applied to any system which acknowledges the supernatural as the bible does.
You cannot equate this to the revelation in the word of God.
Hence equating current scientific consensus + your personal opinions to God’s book is ridiculous.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. My argument does not at all depend on the term “written revelation”. Do you understand the concept of the Two Books? Did you read the article to which I linked?
Well I do.
Why not? Do you think scientific study of how rain forms cannot be applied directly to any system which acknowledges the supernatural as the Bible does?
I am not. You really don’t seem to understand the concept of the Two Books.
As I have already told you, I do not make any such equation. This is not how I define the Book of God’s Work.
I will explain it to you again.
The Book of God’s Word is the Bible. We get information about the Book of God’s Word from a combination of personal observation and textual critics, lexicographers, translators, historians, archaeologists, and a host of other professionals. That doesn’t mean commentaries are the Book of God’s Word. People can make mistakes about their interpretation of the Book of God’s Word, just as they can make mistakes about their interpretation of the Book of God’s Work.
The Book of God’s Work is the natural creation. We get information about the Book of God’s Word from a combination of personal observation and science. That doesn’t mean science is the Book of God’s Work. People can make mistakes about their interpretation of the Book of God’s Work, just as they can make mistakes about their interpretation of the Book of God’s Word.
Do you understand the distinction being made? Would you like more reading on this concept? It’s extremely well developed in mainstream Christian theology. Have you read the article to which I linked?
It’s a false distinction.
While textual critics, translators, etc help in understanding the book of God’s word, the ultimate help is from the Spirit of God. With the help of the holy Spirit, we can understand God’s word enough to help us walk in a relationship with God.
If we evaluate Science as an endeavour to study the book of Gods work. Then it’s a total failure, as wcienc hasn’t even come to acknowledge the existence of God.
This is just an excuse to raise scientific consensus to the level of divine revelation… or rather, bring divine revelation to a subservient status with respect to scientific consensus.
You need to demonstrate this. Then write up your article and submit it for peer review, so you can tell everyone else they’re wrong.
Wait, people in the twenty first century still believe this? Where is the evidence for this outlandish claim? Do you also believe demons cause illness and witches turn people into goats? The level of theology here at PS really is virtually medieval.
Evidence please. Faithful Christians were using science and methodological naturalism to study the Book of God’s Work successfully for centuries before science became entirely secular. How does failure to acknowledge the existence of God’s work invalidate, for example, the scientific understanding of the condensation/precipitation cycle, or the scientific understanding of flight, or the scientific understanding of how smoking damages lungs and can cause cancers?
If you can’t accept methodological naturalism, then there is no point discussing science with you. It would be like trying to discuss outer space with a fish.
No it isn’t, because scientific consensus isn’t being elevated to the authority of divine revelation, and divine revelation isn’t being considered equally as fallible as science. The Bible is being considered as divine revelation, and people’s interpretation of the Bible is being considered fallible. The natural creation is being considered as divine revelation, and people’s interpretation of the natural creation is being considered fallible.
You missed these two points, which I made previously.
People can make mistakes about their interpretation of the Book of God’s Word, just as they can make mistakes about their interpretation of the Book of God’s Work. True or false?
People can make mistakes about their interpretation of the Book of God’s Work, just as they can make mistakes about their interpretation of the Book of God’s Word. True or false?
Once again, have you read the article to which I linked?
I think you will find that the early Geologists, the first scientists to start seeing a problem with a plain reading of Genesis, were quite sincerely Christian in their beliefs and world view.
The only thing that was changing for them was a more figurative interpretation of the timeline Genesis was trying to describe.
So while you are quick to use the evasion that most of today’s scientists no longer see natural evidence as part of God’s second book … there was a time when most of the scientists involve did see God’s work in nature… and their conclusions were no less dramatic as the reading of today’s scientists.
Not the point at all…
The point is that Science does not tell us anything about God.if Science is a “commentary” on the “book of God’s work”… what does it tell us about God?
What can science tell is about -
a) God’s existence.
b) God’s nature etc…
It can tell us nothing. Christian scientists who believe in God do so because of the work of Holy Spirit in their lives and their theology should be informed by the word of God. @Jonathan_Burke The above is the answer to your point also.
Let’s assume your scenario is true and Science is something like an interpretation of God’s book of words.
What does Science tell us about God? What kind of commentary on God’s revelation is totally incapable of telling us anything about God?
And once again you completely change the subject and say something utterly ridiculous. Of course I don’t consider myself incapable of understanding a scientific hypothesis. You are apparently incurably intellectually dishonest.
Yes I do. How could you possibly conclude otherwise? Your conclusion makes no logical sense whatever.
The Old Testament for a start, and the socio-historical context of the New Testament. There has been plenty of material written on this by theologians. Since they are led by the Holy Spirit (according to you), they must be right.
How is this even a question? The kind of commentary which describes observations of the natural world. Science provides descriptions of observations of the natural world. How can it possibly provide commentary on God, when it isn’t observing God at all? As several people on this site have said repeatedly, science doesn’t comment on God because it’s incapable of commenting on something it isn’t observing or studying.
Once again, have you read the article to which I linked? Your complete lack of understanding of this topic, and the totally irrelevant questions you’re asking, suggests you haven’t.
How is it a commentary on God’s work if it can say nothing about God?
Why would you equate Science with commentary on God’s revelation through nature?
I think this would be a minimum requirement for something to be a commentary on God’s work in creation. If it’s a commentary about God’s work, then it must speak about God. And if God is inaccessible to Science, then science cannot be considered a commentary on God’s work.
Well, you seem to think the idea that one needs the help of the Holy spirit to correctly interpret the bible is “medieval theology”.
Maybe you wanted to say something else.
Why don’t you expand on this theme.
As to theologians being led by Holy Spirit. I didn’t make that claim, I just pointed out that correct interpretation of the bible would need the help of the holy spirit.
Because it’s talking about God’s work. It doesn’t need to say anything about God in order to make observations on God’s work. We’ve been through this several times. It would have helped if you had read the article, which you clearly haven’t. The fact that you’re also avoiding answering my question about whether you’ve answered it, suggests you don’t want to read it.
I haven’t said that science is, or is equivalent to, a commentary on God’s revelation through nature. I have said it is a commentary on the natural creation. That’s all.
Really? So I can’t describe a tree without speaking about God? I can’t talk about leaves, bark, roots, and photosynthesis, without speaking about God? You’re not making any sense.
Yes. How do you therefore reach the conclusion that I don’t believe the Holy Spirit exists? Where is your logical rationale?
Because you’re already not paying any attention to what I’m saying on this topic, and you’re consistently dodging questions. Starting a new conversation on another topic, only for you to the same, would be a complete waste of time.
So you’re saying theologians need the help of the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible correctly?
It doesn’t even claim to talk about God’s work. It doesn’t even claim God exists.
You are forcing Science into a role that it does not claim or have.
The point of the “book of God’s work” is not to make observations about nature. It should teach us about God.
Have you ever heard of natural theology?
How does a commentary on natural creation end up as a commentary on “God’s work” ?
What’s the theological authenticity of such a claim? It’s just illogical nonsense.
It can say all that… however what theological significance does such information have?
It’s the work of the Holy Spirit.
What do you think the Holy Spirit is?
It claims to talk about the thing we call “the natural creation”. And it does. So what if it doesn’t even claim God exists?
Evidence please. Ask all the scientists here if that statement if “Science makes observations about nature” is “forcing science into a role that it does not claim or have”.
Relevance?
Yes. It’s theology, not science. How does natural theology progress? By taking observations about nature, observations provided by science, and applying theology.
Because, as I have explained, the natural creation is God’s work. Whose work do you think it is?
I have already directed you, several times, to an article explaining this. If you continue to refuse to even read that article, then I’m not going to waste my time explaining further.
Oh so now you agree science can make observations of the natural creation? As to what theological significance that information has, that is the work of theology, not science.
Right, so your logic is that if I don’t think that X is the work of the Holy Spirit, then X doesn’t exist? This is a complete non sequitur.
Science does not claim to talk about any kind of “creation”.
This is just a false statement.
Saying Science is a “commentary on the book of God’s works” is forcing Science into a role it doesn’t claim.
Are you dropping this claim?
Where do you get the “theology” which you are applying from?
I would say that as Christians, we get our theology from God’s work.
Do you are back to interpretations of God’s work + Scientific consensus.
I.e you have the possibility of errors/limitations of both.
Science does not acknowledge “creation”.
You should know this. It’s theology all the way here.
So where does that leave the so called “book of God’s work”?
It built the Scientific Revolution, and laid the foundation of the Enlightenment (I just realized YOU MIGHT think both of those were shockingly bad ideas)
And as you can see, I said absolutely nothing about Josh. I was writing directly to you.
Really?
But YOU SOUND LIKE the kind of physicist who will turn around and say… YOU SOUND LIKE the kind of physicist who thinks we don’t even know what reality is
Please read what I actually write.
Well here we obviously disagree. I will repeat what I said before.
Facts about texts and other historical artifacts. Theologians can become authoritative on these facts with a high degree of certainty.
Facts about what texts and other historical artifacts were intended to mean by their writers and creators. Theologians can become authoritative on these facts with a relatively high degree of certainty.
Facts about what texts and other historical artifacts tell us about God. Theologians can become authoritative on these facts with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Facts about God (not interpretations of texts and other historical artifacts which tell us about God). Theologians are not authoritative on this subject at all. Here we are firmly in the realm of opinion.
And I will repeat this.
Care to comment?
This is not nitpicking semantics, this is basic English grammar.
have authority to speak: have permission to speak
speak authoritatively on: make statements which others should normatively view as decisive and/or authoritative
These are not equivalents.
Then why is it ok for you to reject YEC epistemology, but when I do it on exactly the same grounds, you start objecting and invoking Hume and questioning what “reality” means?
But you think that it’s ok for people to choose an epistemology based on nothing but preference. I disagree. I also think that it’s important to oppose conclusions which are demonstrably false. YEC does enormous damage to the cause of Christianity, so I don’t believe it should be encouraged, cossetted, supported, or defended. YECs should be told that they’re wrong.
Leaving them within their epistemology and saying “Well you have your truth, and I have my truth, and your truth can be different to mine and that’s ok”, isn’t going to change their viewpoint. Telling them “We can interpret the science in such a way that you can keep your historical Adam and Eve who were created de novo 6,000 years ago and were the sole genetic progenitors of the human race” (or at least giving them that impression with carefully vague statements like “Adam and Eve, ancestors of us all”), isn’t right.
No I am not dropping this claim. As I have told you, when I say science is a commentary on the Book of God’s Work, I am saying science makes observations about the natural creation. Again, ask all the scientists here if that statement if “Science makes observations about nature” is “forcing science into a role that it does not claim or have”.
From God’s Word.
Really? All of it? What’s the role of the Bible then?
I have no idea what this means.
I do know this. As I said before, so what?
Read the article to which I linked. Maybe you’ll get it. Why are you not reading the article?