Science

Siloam said:
With some trepidation, particularly since I am new here...

Romans 1:21
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Here Paul relates God's lament regarding man's inability to learn about God from the works of God. In this verse, it is not the scriptures that are being ignored, it is the /natural/ world around us.

Proverbs repetitively uses the natural world to provide lessons about God.

I believe that Christians should be thoroughly involved is the sciences

This does not mean that the plan of salvation can be found in the rocks or stars, it does mean that a lot about God can be learned by studying His works.

Example:
Theoreticians tell us that without the things in space, the very structure of space would not exist. Not that there would be emptiness, but that space itself would not exist, neither would time. May not seem very spiritual to you, but to me it shows that God created Space, Time, and Matter in an inter-related manner. He is therefore _outside_ of time. Consider the discussions of predestination and eternal security when God is not bound by time. He knows what you will choose before the creation of the world, precisely because he stands outside of time and can truly see what is to us the future as well as the past. This does not mean that we have no free will. I can freely choose something today and realize that God knew of and saw my choice to write my name in a book before the Earth was created. I find this to be an amazing example of how a knowledge of the Creator's works can tell us surprising things about Him and us.

We (Christians as a community) need to be in the sciences and be ready to be taught things we may not otherwise know. I am often struck with fresh understanding of an aspect of the nature God when I read sciences.

Yes, much of science is a process of identifying and eliminating errors. It is quite different than the approach to scripture, which is perfect. However, in both cases man's understanding and interpretation of either the Bible or Science is imperfect. I Thess 5:21 is a thumbnail description of what is (miss-nomicaly) called the 'scientific method'.

For myself, the sciences were a large part of what led me to Christ. Yes, it was through witnesses of faithful Christians to gain a personal relationship, but much of my understanding of God's holiness and majesty was from considering questions like 'if the universe is this way, what does that say about the creator'.

I praise God for His patience and his gentleness in bringing me to Him.

-- John
Click to expand...

I agree. God wrote two books, the bible and the book of nature. Jesus often used nature as an object lesson to explain spiritual truth. The only caveat is that nature is no longer a perfect revelation of God due to sin. Therefore, any conclusions must be within the context of scripture and not the other way around.
 
Man-ofGod said:
I agree. God wrote two books, the bible and the book of nature. Jesus often used nature as an object lesson to explain spiritual truth. The only caveat is that nature is no longer a perfect revelation of God due to sin. Therefore, any conclusions must be within the context of scripture and not the other way around.
Click to expand...

The tension between nature and scripture has been going on for ages. In the time of Augustine, the issue was whether Aristotle's views should be endorsed by Christians. Many held that Aristotle's were heresy. Augustine tried to provide another view:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
John Hammond Taylor;Augustine. St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis: 001 (Ancient Christian Writers) ​

I would not use Augustine's judgmental language concerning believers, but the interesting thing is that in the intervening years, believers have found ways of reconciling many views of the Aristotelian philosophy. Now much of it can be found in Christian materials presented as the Biblical view of the world. The point being that we should not be too quick to refuse to learn from a differing point of view. God's work reveals Him.

The universe was spoken into existence and as such it is in His unique way God's word. Christians should study it.
 
yea I don't get why some christians seems so opposed to science. Just cos some scientists have weird beliefs doesn't mean we can't learn more about God's creation.

For example, I posted in another forum about healing trees, cos in the Bible God said there were trees for healing. I wanted to investigate this.
Then another guy tried to shut down discussion on this thread cos he thought I was being pagan. Apparently he was a druid or something. But really, why does his former nature worship beliefs interfere with my wanting to know about God's creation and trees in the Bible?

Anyway. I hope he's ok but christians shouldn't be opposed to learning how God created things or appreciating what he created. As long as we give thanks to our creator.
 
Lanolin said:
yea I don't get why some christians seems so opposed to science. Just cos some scientists have weird beliefs doesn't mean we can't learn more about God's creation.

For example, I posted in another forum about healing trees, cos in the Bible God said there were trees for healing. I wanted to investigate this.
Then another guy tried to shut down discussion on this thread cos he thought I was being pagan. Apparently he was a druid or something. But really, why does his former nature worship beliefs interfere with my wanting to know about God's creation and trees in the Bible?

Anyway. I hope he's ok but christians shouldn't be opposed to learning how God created things or appreciating what he created. As long as we give thanks to our creator.
Click to expand...
God put trees and plants ...and....wisdom to create in our minds, healing products. God doesn't make dummies :)
 
Siloam said:
The tension between nature and scripture has been going on for ages. In the time of Augustine, the issue was whether Aristotle's views should be endorsed by Christians. Many held that Aristotle's were heresy. Augustine tried to provide another view:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
John Hammond Taylor;Augustine. St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis: 001 (Ancient Christian Writers) ​

I would not use Augustine's judgmental language concerning believers, but the interesting thing is that in the intervening years, believers have found ways of reconciling many views of the Aristotelian philosophy. Now much of it can be found in Christian materials presented as the Biblical view of the world. The point being that we should not be too quick to refuse to learn from a differing point of view. God's work reveals Him.

The universe was spoken into existence and as such it is in His unique way God's word. Christians should study it.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any problem with entertaining different views. However, there are things declared in scripture that one cannot gainsay to fit a particular paradigm--though they may try. No matter how foolish a biblical narrative may appear to a popular ideologue it is still objective truth and should be accepted as such by anyone who professes the name Christianity.
 
Man-ofGod said:
I don't think there is any problem with entertaining different views. However, there are things declared in scripture that one cannot gainsay to fit a particular paradigm--though they may try. No matter how foolish a biblical narrative may appear to a popular ideologue it is still objective truth and should be accepted as such by anyone who professes the name Christianity.
Click to expand...

Pope John Paul II commenting on the compatibility of science with Biblical teaching said “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth”.

A key point in Augustine’s treatise is that if something is known to be true, it provides guidance in the interpretation of scripture. A little later in Augustine’s book on Genesis he wrote (again the issue there was the Aristotelian view of creation):

But someone may ask: "Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?" Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false. The truth is rather in what God reveals than in what groping men surmise. But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions. If it were, it would be opposed also to Sacred Scripture itself in another passage where it says that heaven is suspended like a vault. For what can be so different and contradictory as a skin stretched out flat and the curved shape of a vault? But if it is necessary, as it surely is, to interpret these two passages so that they are shown not to be contradictory but to be reconcilable, it is also necessary that both of these passages should not contradict the theories that may be supported by true evidence, by which heaven is said to be curved on all sides in the shape of a sphere, provided only that this is proved.​

I remember many years back in high school, there was a very smart kid in my algebra class. He always thought he knew more than the teacher and had a hard time receiving instruction. In my opinion, there are many times God is pouring out knowledge concerning Himself, but we are unwilling to consider that we did not properly understand what was stated in scripture.
 
Every thing needed to build a "jumbo jet", or a "rocket ship" to send man to the moon was already in the garden of Eden, only man had not yet discovered how to extract the materiel to build such things. Man can not create anything new, he can only discover what has already been created from the beginning. Science does just that. All medical science, or any kind of science is simply studying the things God created in the beginning to come to an understanding of who God is and his unlimited Wisdom, so that man has no excuse not to believe!
 
Siloam said:
Pope John Paul II commenting on the compatibility of science with Biblical teaching said “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth”.

A key point in Augustine’s treatise is that if something is known to be true, it provides guidance in the interpretation of scripture. A little later in Augustine’s book on Genesis he wrote (again the issue there was the Aristotelian view of creation):

But someone may ask: "Is not Scripture opposed to those who hold that heaven is spherical, when it says, who stretches out heaven like a skin?" Let it be opposed indeed if their statement is false. The truth is rather in what God reveals than in what groping men surmise. But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture about the skin is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions. If it were, it would be opposed also to Sacred Scripture itself in another passage where it says that heaven is suspended like a vault. For what can be so different and contradictory as a skin stretched out flat and the curved shape of a vault? But if it is necessary, as it surely is, to interpret these two passages so that they are shown not to be contradictory but to be reconcilable, it is also necessary that both of these passages should not contradict the theories that may be supported by true evidence, by which heaven is said to be curved on all sides in the shape of a sphere, provided only that this is proved.​

I remember many years back in high school, there was a very smart kid in my algebra class. He always thought he knew more than the teacher and had a hard time receiving instruction. In my opinion, there are many times God is pouring out knowledge concerning Himself, but we are unwilling to consider that we did not properly understand what was stated in scripture.
Click to expand...

Augustine correctly asserts that scripture cannot contradict scripture and that it must be reconciled. To that I have no qualms. But he errs when he says "it is also necessary that both of these passages should not contradict the theories that may be supported by true evidence" Theories in comparison to scripture are merely mans opinions on new information. Let's consider his conclusion in retrospect and observe some of the theories that Augustine adhered to in his day.


"That in his day and age the earth was as flat as a stove lid and that it floated on water like half of a sliced orange" 1 It seems by this quote, Augustine believed in a flat world. Perhaps he thought the evidence pointed to this idea ,yet in that very verse he just quoted (Isa 40:22), we see scripture refers to the earth as a "circle." His conclusions would twist the word of God to fit his worldview which would have obviously been erroneous. However, if he was careful to compare scripture with scripture first, as in the case where he shows two seeming dichotomies with "stretched skin" vs the "curved shape of a vault," he could then interpret the world through the lenses of scripture.
 
Last edited:
Rather than debate the place of science in a believers life, which may unnecessarily lead to misunderstandings and hard feelings, I would like to share a few of the things from my meditations.

The first that comes to mind is Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem. According to this theorem, any system of logic based on axioms cannot be both complete and consistent, Originally proved for numeric systems, such as arithmetic, but later generalized to include all axiom based logic. Here is formal proof that man cannot know everything. As I consider, as a rude layman of both Christianity and the sciences, I am ever mindful that there are limits to Man’s knowledge and to my understandings.

I am also struck by the wondrous and strange pronouncements of quantum mechanics. It seems that at the bottom of physical existence there are strange fundamental forces, processes and events that can only be studied in terms of probability, Randomness and probability theory are always methods of quantifying and evaluating unknowns. Many of the more astounding possibilities are of very low probability. I would not be the first to note that an infinite God could overcome these exceedingly low, but not impossible “odds”. Putting an astronomically large number of these events together and any of the miracles recorded in scripture may be accomplished.

I find it much more satisfying from both points of view to explain miracles as God causing unlikely things to happen than the often stated explanation that God is above natural law. God’s law was created to demonstrate His power and consistency. I find is hard to accept that the very times God chooses to show His power, He violates the very laws He instituted to demonstrate His power. Miracles, to me, are not an arbitrary God setting aside his own laws, but the master of those laws.

If one had a complete grasp of physics (despite Mr. Goedel's arguments) and was at hand and able to observe and take measurement readings when Jesus fed the multitudes with five loaves and a couple of fish, all observations would confirm that all physical laws were completely followed. It's just that the Lord had a better grasp of Gods laws of the physical universe than we do (or ever will).

The Lord God is not the God of chaos; he is a God of order. Among the things that God cannot do is violate his own nature, but He is not at a loss to apply His laws with finesse.
 
Siloam said:
Rather than debate the place of science in a believers life, which may unnecessarily lead to misunderstandings and hard feelings, I would like to share a few of the things from my meditations.

The first that comes to mind is Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem. According to this theorem, any system of logic based on axioms cannot be both complete and consistent, Originally proved for numeric systems, such as arithmetic, but later generalized to include all axiom based logic. Here is formal proof that man cannot know everything. As I consider, as a rude layman of both Christianity and the sciences, I am ever mindful that there are limits to Man’s knowledge and to my understandings.

I am also struck by the wondrous and strange pronouncements of quantum mechanics. It seems that at the bottom of physical existence there are strange fundamental forces, processes and events that can only be studied in terms of probability, Randomness and probability theory are always methods of quantifying and evaluating unknowns. Many of the more astounding possibilities are of very low probability. I would not be the first to note that an infinite God could overcome these exceedingly low, but not impossible “odds”. Putting an astronomically large number of these events together and any of the miracles recorded in scripture may be accomplished.

I find it much more satisfying from both points of view to explain miracles as God causing unlikely things to happen than the often stated explanation that God is above natural law. God’s law was created to demonstrate His power and consistency. I find is hard to accept that the very times God chooses to show His power, He violates the very laws He instituted to demonstrate His power. Miracles, to me, are not an arbitrary God setting aside his own laws, but the master of those laws.

If one had a complete grasp of physics (despite Mr. Goedel's arguments) and was at hand and able to observe and take measurement readings when Jesus fed the multitudes with five loaves and a couple of fish, all observations would confirm that all physical laws were completely followed. It's just that the Lord had a better grasp of Gods laws of the physical universe than we do (or ever will).

The Lord God is not the God of chaos; he is a God of order. Among the things that God cannot do is violate his own nature, but He is not at a loss to apply His laws with finesse.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with quantum theory. It makes perfect sense in a universe governed by freewill and it only strengthens the argument for intelligent design. Perhaps it would be interesting to contemplate what must have happened on a particulate level for Jesus to walk on water. Obvious the catalyst for the event would be supernatural (God). Nevertheless, the effect would play out in reality in both the macroscopic and particulate levels.

With that said, don't let the wonderful things we learn in God's mathematical universe deceive you into believing that we are better expositors of His universe than the Holy Word itself. Those things we learn in His word we take on faith as true and no theory man can come up with is permitted to contradict the explicit meaning. As you quoted earlier "truth cannot contradict truth." We must humble ourselves and yield to what is true. Why? Because Faith comes by hearing and by hearing the Word of God and without it, it is impossible to please God. His word is the invisible force in which all visible things are made (Heb 11:3). If we cannot trust it's explicit meaning, then we cannot have faith. And if we do not have faith then we do not have hope either.

God Bless,
MoG
 
Man-ofGod said:
I have no problem with quantum theory. It makes perfect sense in a universe governed by freewill and it only strengthens the argument for intelligent design. Perhaps it would be interesting to contemplate what must have happened on a particulate level for Jesus to walk on water. Obvious the catalyst for the event would be supernatural (God). Nevertheless, the effect would play out in reality in both the macroscopic and particulate levels.
Click to expand...


A few years ago, I had a mental game considering how miracles recounted in the Bible would be possible for an infinite God. These were not attempts to guess at the actual method, but to find the most outrageous means that could have been employed.

In the case of Jesus walking on the water, one idea (I won’t even call it a speculation) was that God turned molecules of water from comets, etc into wave form that turned back into water just under the Lord. The momentum was adjusted so that the upward pressure balanced the weight of the Lord. I won’t go into all the ins and outs of all either the transport, or the adjustment of momentum, particularly since it is meant to be unlikely. In this post, I haven’t even touched on the causality/probability analysis that went with the ‘explanation’.

I am sure that God used much more subtle means.


The point is (was) that an infinite God can do marvelous things without violating His laws of nature. It also doesn’t reduce His miracles to magic tricks, or Moses’ staff to a magic wand.
 
I like the explanation of the parting of the red sea.
That is so cool, that God can do that. (Blowing on the sea to create a pathway...on the hidden land ridge)

With Jesus walking on water, I kind of think he just knew where to walk, there was probably a ridge just where he was underneath the sea. Peter could do it too when he saw Jesus and went out to meet him, but problem was he looked down. He saw he was on the water and all the waves around him and forgot to trust and walk straight.

Water into wine Im not sure..but Im sure Jesus had a process that winemakers use today but speeded up the process. Multiplying loaves and fishes? Jesus could do maths. Maybe one day we can learn that too, but women have been making meals from practically nothing for a long time. Jesus just did that on a bigger scale.

Healing miracles?,Jesus had all the power in his hands to make those moleculesand those cells move..like he said, faith of mustard seed. That same faith can move mountains if you can combine it.

Nowadays we can speak and tell google what to look for. When we speak out in faith things surely do happen, as God made things with innate intelligence in them, so they will do what he commands.
 
Lanolin said:
I like the explanation of the parting of the red sea.
That is so cool, that God can do that. (Blowing on the sea to create a pathway...on the hidden land ridge)

With Jesus walking on water, I kind of think he just knew where to walk, there was probably a ridge just where he was underneath the sea. Peter could do it too when he saw Jesus and went out to meet him, but problem was he looked down. He saw he was on the water and all the waves around him and forgot to trust and walk straight.

Water into wine Im not sure..but Im sure Jesus had a process that winemakers use today but speeded up the process. Multiplying loaves and fishes? Jesus could do maths. Maybe one day we can learn that too, but women have been making meals from practically nothing for a long time. Jesus just did that on a bigger scale.

Healing miracles?,Jesus had all the power in his hands to make those moleculesand those cells move..like he said, faith of mustard seed. That same faith can move mountains if you can combine it.

Nowadays we can speak and tell google what to look for. When we speak out in faith things surely do happen, as God made things with innate intelligence in them, so they will do what he commands.
Click to expand...
I think you need to explain yourself more. What I am taking away from your statements here is that the walking on the water and the water to wine were just partially miracles and that Jesus didn't fully do what the Bible said He did?

Jesus didn't just find a good area to walk where it was safe. He walked on water during a storm plain as day. He also turned water into wine not using some manmade wine making recipe. Where do you come up with this stuff? I sincerely am asking because you are dead wrong on this.
 
Siloam said:
A few years ago, I had a mental game considering how miracles recounted in the Bible would be possible for an infinite God. These were not attempts to guess at the actual method, but to find the most outrageous means that could have been employed.

In the case of Jesus walking on the water, one idea (I won’t even call it a speculation) was that God turned molecules of water from comets, etc into wave form that turned back into water just under the Lord. The momentum was adjusted so that the upward pressure balanced the weight of the Lord. I won’t go into all the ins and outs of all either the transport, or the adjustment of momentum, particularly since it is meant to be unlikely. In this post, I haven’t even touched on the causality/probability analysis that went with the ‘explanation’.

I am sure that God used much more subtle means.


The point is (was) that an infinite God can do marvelous things without violating His laws of nature. It also doesn’t reduce His miracles to magic tricks, or Moses’ staff to a magic wand.
Click to expand...
"Miracles" are simply the manifested power of faith by which Peter did it too, until he doubted and sank. Faith is the "goo" that makes the unseen visible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top