We’re not. Science is part of what we use to see general revelation. The book is already there waiting to be seen and read in more detail.
1 Like
Speaking of which, g’night – it’s 12:30 a.m. here. 
1 Like
Now, we will have to see whether the scientific method is qualitatively superior as a tool to “see” general revelation as compared to say, a beautiful sunset drawn by an artist.
To have such a view, we would have to make several value judgements.
And I don’t see any logic to such claims.
Why can’t it just be an excellent additional way to see? It doesn’t supplant other ways.
2 Likes
Not if it’s full of noise. If nature is the message, science is facts about nature + noise.
It’s not qualitatively better than any other example we looked at such as looking at a waterfall or listening to music,etc.
And In some cases, such as the presentation of the science by athiests like Richard Dawkins to the public, it’s qualitatively inferior. Might as well spend the time looking at how pretty clouds are.
Noise is analogous to dirt on glasses.
1 Like
Agreed.
1 Like
The point being that science is knowledge of nature filtered for a different purpose from that of general revelation.
The purpose of science is to explain nature without resorting to God/the supernatural.
The purpose of general revelation is to point to God.
I see a conflict of interest.
Nah. Science allows us to see tardigrades. 
Aren’t they part of general revelation?
2 Likes
Definitely not. That’s what materialists pretend it’s for, but they’re wrong. It’s ‘just’ a pair of glasses, and we still need to correctly interpret what we see with them.
1 Like
I would kindly refer you to the title of this thread and my subsequent replies which clearly indicate that I do not “equate” science with general revelation. (Unless you do not know what the word “equate” means.) I also don’t necessarily endorse the “two books” model. I don’t really think of science in that way. This is another of the TE/EC baggage that only bogs us down.
There’s no reason to compare superiority. Both are parts of general revelation. Same with listening to great music.
I have already explained that a Christian scientist can go beyond what a regular scientist does and reflect on the actions and nature of God based on what they find in science.
Christian scientists have the tools to separate the noise from the message.
No, it’s just that we’ve found out that the naturalistic methods of science are actually the most effective way to study God’s creation. The conflict disappears when we properly situate science as only one manner of knowing.
2 Likes
I think I do. I frequently say that the truth that we get from the reality of God’s word cannot conflict with the truth that we get from the reality of his creation.
1 Like
I don’t think it’s unfair to say science tries to explain phenomenon without resorting to supernatural explanations including God.
Yes you haven’t. So I won’t talk about equating science and general revelation anymore. You have made a more limited claim and I should stick to it.
My objection is that science is a filtered report/explanation for a part of the general revelation.
The filter being MN.
This makes science and general revelation entirely different things with different purposes.
I agree.
I don’t have any problem with this. I just think this ability has more to do with the person being a Christian than being a scientist.
After all an equally competent athiest scientist does not end up reflecting on God or his role… very often it’s the contrary position they take.
That’s great.
But unfortunately, this method totally rules out studying God himself through nature.
Whereas general revelation is all about understanding God’s nature by studying creation.
Science is a good tool. But it has nothing to do with general revelation.
Science tries to figure out how creation works. Just because scientism tries to exclude God doesn’t mean we stomp on our glasses and say they’re no good for a more detailed look at general revelation.
2 Likes
On the contrary, many atheist scientists feel a sense of wonder and mystery as they study science, similar to how many atheists feel strong moral convictions even as they try to explain it through other means. Similarly, one of my previous orchestral conductors remarked that “profound experiences of music has replaced religion.” Even in a very secularized society, people still strongly experience the allure of the transcendent through encounters with great science and art. This has only increased since our scientific knowledge continues to grow. To me, this is nothing but the lingering, innate sense of God that was originally implanted in us, even if the image of God has been corrupted.
You seem to think of secular refusal to acknowledge God behind their experiences of the transcendence as proof that these experiences have nothing to do with God’s revelation. On the contrary, I think of this common experience and yearning for transcendence as an opportunity to connect with people when conversing about God and religious matters.
I think you are basically saying that because our capacity to respond to the message has been corrupted, the message no longer constitutes a message. This is dangerous. Consider the implication. Someone reads the Bible but deduces that God must be heartless, xenophobic and evil. Does that mean that the Bible is no longer part of God’s revelation?
I think I’ve spelled out my views coherently and extensively in this thread. Seems like your objections to my views are motivated by 1) a categorical confusion of revelation and response to revelation, and 2) a personal objection against methodological naturalism. I have little more to say on the subject and I will try to restrain myself from commenting further.
1 Like
You did not understand my objections at all… and you haven’t addressed them. I will try to summarise it and leave it at that-.
Point of agreement -
a)Nature is a part of general revelation.
b) Science is a good and effective way of studying nature.
c) The purpose of general revelation is to show forth the qualities of God (such as his eternal nature).
Points if disagreement-
a) The purpose of science is to explain nature without resorting to God as a cause. Hence Science cannot come to conclusions involving God or his traits such as omniscience etc.(edited for clarity)
Hence Science is not a part of General revelation even through nature is.
You seem to think that a sense of awe felt by scientists while doing science makes it a part of general revelation. I don’t see any logic to this.
Awe does not equate to knowing God exists/is omnipotent etc.
The sense of Awe is felt because of the observation of nature involved in Science.
I am not saying this. I was making an additional observation in relation to Christian scientists thinking about God when doing science.
I was referring to the work of the holy Spirit which in addition to/along with the general revelation is crucial for individuals to understand it.
The equivalent of this with the bible is that, you can’t receive/accept the revelation in the bible without the help of the holy spirit. There is nothing controversial about this.
Perhaps I should not have mentioned this because it doesn’t have much to do with what is general revelation and what is not.
I don’t. But I have no interest in pressing that point.
However – if you see science as part of general revelation, should you also see perception as part of general revelation? And if perception is part of revelation, what about the perception by your dog or perception by that fly on the wall? How far does this extend?
2 Likes
Interesting question… what exactly do you understand by the term general revelation?
I don’t. It’s a long time since I left Christianity, so I don’t much come across the term. However, there is a poster at TSZ who often talks about revelation, and it is never clear what he means.
Revelation is an understanding/message given by God to human beings. General revelation refers to the understanding of God’s nature inferred from observing creation.
Edit: A more technical explanation given by Grudem is shared by @dga471 above.
1 Like