Welcome to Terrell Clemmons: Questions on Methodological Naturalism

We are now back to MN vs. PN and the distinctions Christians need to make.

1 Like

OK, sure. I think it just semantics. What I mean is that the findings and conclusions of science can spur on a Christian scientist to realize new things about God’s actions in the world. (Whether that has a bearing directly on the “nature” of God is less clear to me.) When said Christian scientist does that, he is not operating as a regular scientist, but as a Christian who is knowledgeable about science. Because of that I still reject your characterization that “science has nothing to do with general revelation”. It has a lot to do with it.

Right, but theologians are also not qualified to make judgments about science. I hope we agree on that one too.

3 Likes

Cool. I have to confess to being fairly provincial in my exposure to current currents. :slightly_smiling_face: I am mostly sensitized to the significant YEC presence.

I see it as a result of you heeding the witness of the Holy spirit. Science is not necessary for the process… a waterfall could work as well…
Revelation is knowledge that is revealed by God. Science in itself is not a revelation, just as a beautiful waterfall is not a revelation.
I think it’s an important distinction that those who point to the two books idea miss.

Yes… and they are usually not interested. Until scientists make theological claims based on Science. For example -Athiesm.

Or, science itself is a revelation, just like a beautiful waterfall is a revelation. :slightly_smiling_face: But that was in your meaning, too, wasn’t it.

3 Likes

I’ve continued this discussion here: Is Science Part of General Revelation?

I think that phrase works great as it is.

At this point, @dga471, you are also a confessing scientist.

1 Like

Perhaps I will start referring to my views as “CAES”…

Yes. But confessing scientist should be the model for Christian scientists regardless of their specific views on creation and divine providence.

4 Likes

And I’d rather we were all defined by this than our position in origins. Let that detail be a mouthful, to force people to start drawing lines in different ways.

That being said, you could just say you are aligned with PS. That would explain quite a bit.

1 Like

A good summary paragraph, Daniel.

The last sentence of that first paragraph is important. The key point for me is that ID folks aren’t saying that wherever we can detect design (supposing we can), God is there, but wherever we can’t, God isn’t there, and only natural causes are operating. They are often accused of believing or implying that by TEs, and therefore of diminishing God by denying his omnipresence in creation. In fact, there’s nothing in ID that rules out the possibility that God is everywhere, in every little nook and cranny of nature; however, because ID’s methods of design detection aspire to be part of natural science, not of theology, they can’t talk about where God is and where God isn’t. They can only talk about where design has been reliably established, and where it hasn’t. The point is that ID isn’t trying to be theology, and therefore can’t be accused of holding a defective theology simply because it can’t confirm design everywhere.

If you ask ID people (I mean, the majority of them who are Christians) whether, as religious believers, they think God is found only in demonstrably designed things, and nowhere else, they would laugh at the idea. Their views on God tend to very traditional, theologically, and so they are going to believe that God is everywhere, and that his power is active everywhere. You can find some people in the TE/EC camp who imply or explicitly say that God does not extend his control over all things (people like Polkinghorne or Oord), but I don’t know any Christian in the ID camp who would say that.

So one little thing that TE leaders could do to reduce friction in these debates is to stop suggesting that ID folks have an inadequate theology on the basis of their statements about the limited sphere of design detection. “Your Christianity isn’t as orthodox about God’s omnipresence as our Christianity” is likely only to raise temperatures, not lower them.

2 Likes

I can attest to this both in discussions I’ve had recently with family members, and my own personal journey. As someone who has struggled for a long time with trying to reconcile science with an “evangelical” theology tied closely to YECism, BioLogos was my first encounter with others that affirmed the science as while holding a theology close to my own. While I had real problems with the way they reconciled the science with their theology, it at least provided affirmation that I wasn’t necessarily crazy or heretical for trying to find a reconciliation.

The discussions here (particularly those related to theology) have brought me much closer to seeing ways to fully reconcile an inerrant scripture with science. To the point where I’m almost willing to express and defend this position with a highly YEC Christian environment.

5 Likes

This relates to the puzzle / exercise of what to save when facing a cataclysm. The set-up is that a cataclysm is about to destroy most of physical records on Earth but there is a storage facility that will survive. You’re asked what irreplaceable objects to save for future civilizations (human or otherwise), within the constraints of a limited space.

So, do you save works of art or science textbooks?

The answer seems to be: save art, literature and cultural artifacts, because they are unique and irreproducible. Works of science such as chemistry & physics, and mathematical works are always there to be rediscovered, regardless of the culture (or species).

2 Likes

Would you like me to dig out passages from ID folks which indicate the opposite? Or would it be better to agree that some ID folks do this and some don’t. The problem with much of this ID, EC/TE discussion is the massive over-generalizations used. (and partisanship)

3 Likes

Can you tell us more about what was helpful?

I am uncomfortable changing interpretation of scripture to match science. At Peaceful Science, I’ve encountered different interpretations of scripture based on careful study of the scriptures (in the original languages), culture of the day, etc. I guess you could say different interpretations that are based on strong heurmeneutics, and exegisis. These to me are valid reasons to reconsider my interpretation. In some ways it’s just an added bonus that these interpretations also provide a better reconciliation with science.

1 Like

It’s the other way around…
Save the science…
Art is intrinsic to human expression… we can’t lose it.

That seems reasonable.

However, we all make our own interpretation of scripture to fit modern culture. It should be obvious that scripture itself was originally for a very different culture. So we have no choice but to find a reading of it consistent with our own culture.

For me, growing up with an interest in science, finding a sensible way of reading scripture automatically meant finding a reading that was consistent with science. Just as you are unfortable changing your interpretation to match science, I would have been uncomfortable changing my interpretation to deny science.

This is why there is such a diversity of ways of reading scripture.

To take an example, consider @Greg. I have engaged in discussion with him (at PS). And it is clear that is never going to accept evolution. For @Greg, to accept evolution would be to deny what he sees as the central message of scripture. However, for me, to deny evolution would be to deny the central message of scripture. So @Greg and I are never going to agree on evolution. But we can still respect one another as humans. There’s no point in us fighting about it.

What I really want @Greg and other YECs to take from this, is an understanding that people can have different ways of reading the scriptures that they nevertheless take to be a natural reading. So maybe we can learn to all get along with one another and accept those differences.

1 Like

Is it just as problematic if people campaign for the idea that there is something outside of nature?

I have qualms about mixing the two, and I am an atheist scientist.

How do you do OOL research based on supernatural origins? It would seem to me that the scientific method is currently the only tool we have for doing research on this subject.

1 Like

I’ll jump off your comments to be more accurate in my statement. I should have said
“I’m uncomfortable changing interpretation of scripture just to match science”.

In other words, science and scripture cannot conflict (given they both originate from the same God). When there is a conflict we should seek to resolve it. However it doing it, we must be very careful not to simply take an interpretation of scripture that we like based on it’s ability to reconcile with science. Any new interpretation must come from careful study of the scriptures. If that leads to an interpretation that can be reconciled with science - fantastic. If it doesn’t we must continue to hold to the interpretation that study convinces us is right, while understanding that either our interpretation is wrong, or that science has got it wrong. We have a tendency to want to resolve these type of conflicts, however sometimes we just have to admit we can’t come to a reconciliation with the information we have available to us at this point it time.

1 Like

From what I have seen, the ID method is to look for structures and events that could not be produced through natural processes. This is why they argue so vehemently against natural processes like evolution. Even Behe states that observing evolution producing an IC system would falsify ID.

It would seem to me that the middle ground between ID and MN lies outside of MN, and providence seems to be the best word to describe it. If Behe’s ideas on the falsification of ID is incorrect, then what would falsify ID within MN? Hypotheses need to be falsifiable, and if we go with Denton’s metaphysical views on how ID works then ID isn’t falsifiable in the scientific sense.

ID supporters really need to figure out where they stand with MN, and how it fits with their theological views. We keep hearing that science isn’t all there is, but at the same time there seems to be a view within the ID community that ID has to be considered scientific in order to be valid. The ID community says one thing, but acts in a very different manner.

1 Like