Then, the matter is settled, cut-and-dried, as they say, for you. You've already used the logos-mythos paradigm on the issue and labeled Christianity as a mythology. Good for you.
— TheMadFool

This is following the supposed rejection of a literal, historical interpretation of perfect and eternal truth. The pseudo-historical aspects thus yielded would constitute a mythology, yes. — Kenosha Kid

Shouldn't the same logic apply to science, the part that goes "...rejection of [a literal, historical interpretation of] perfect and eternal truth"? I mean, if you're going to challenge the "perfect and eternal truth" of religion, does it seem reasonable to claim "perfect and eternal truth" yourself? If you say "no", then how do you know you're right? You won't say "yes", right?

Yes, but like I said, the religious are not only defending the God hypothesis; they are defending specific historical narratives that *are* falsified by science.

Galileo did not uncover that God did not exist; he merely concluded that the Earth orbited the Sun. By your argument, the church should have been happy to know God's universe better, but they weren't because, above and beyond the God hypothesis, church dogma placed the Earth at the centre of the universe. — Kenosha Kid

Ok but, again, can science claim rights to anything that's "perfect and eternal truth"? No! So, how does science know it's right?

The phrase "scientific orthodoxy" or "scientific consensus" makes sense. I've never heard of "scientific heresy" and would describe any scientist employing it as histrionic at best. — Kenosha Kid

Yes. I think I got a bit carried away there. Pardon the brain fart.

I meant 'falsifiable' in precisely the same sense it is meant in meeting the criterion of scientific hypothesis. If we next have to undermine the basis of the falsifiability criterion, one can bypass most of this conversation entirely and just have one of those threads that pop up from time to time stating that science doesn't work, etc, in which case religion presumably has nothing to worry about. — Kenosha Kid

Falsifiable..."meeting the criterion of scientific hypothesis"? Of course but take the religious perspective for a second and many scientific claims are false. :chin:

? I mean, if you're going to challenge the "perfect and eternal truth" of religion, does it seem reasonable to claim "perfect and eternal truth" yourself? — TheMadFool

But science doesn't present perfect and eternal truths. It is, by its nature, self-correcting and incomplete.

So, how does science know it's right? — TheMadFool

Empiricism. Scientific models are primarily tools for generating hypotheses -- predictions of specific experimental outcomes which may be tested and retested in a lab. Typically a model will assume the existence of an external reality that is the cause of such phenomena, but really you can replace this with whatever you like, including, as you say, God. For instance, if we assume that God causes every motion, then science is good at predicting what motions God will cause. If we assume that there is no external reality, only hallucinatory impressions for instance, then science is good at predicting hallucinations. The same model will work as well. That is the limit to which it can be considered 'right'; everything else is a belief.

Pardon the brain fart. — TheMadFool

We all get em!

Of course but take the religious perspective for a second and many scientific claims are false. :chin: — TheMadFool

Yes. Although the God hypothesis we suppose to be compatible with science would not have any criteria by which to assess. Those who believe the Bible to be a perfectly accurate, eternally true, literal description of historical facts, do have criteria: is it consistent with scripture? And that's when things get heated.

But science doesn't present perfect and eternal truths. It is, by its nature, self-correcting and incomplete. — Kenosha Kid

Then, it should, for that reason, accommodate religion. I mean if science is all about tentative theories, and it is, these theories and the claims based on those theories are liable to change, not only change in the sense that an essence is retained with minor modifications but actually overturned, turned on its head as it were. Do you know the Phlogiston theory? It's fate should serve as a reminder to scientists that their theories can be (some have been) totally disproved. This means we need to be very cautious about drawing conclusions from the mere occurrence of a contradiction between science and other stuff like religion.

Empiricism. Scientific models are primarily tools for generating hypotheses -- predictions of specific experimental outcomes which may be tested and retested in a lab. Typically a model will assume the existence of an external reality that is the cause of such phenomena, but really you can replace this with whatever you like, including, as you say, God. For instance, if we assume that God causes every motion, then science is good at predicting what motions God will cause. If we assume that there is no external reality, only hallucinatory impressions for instance, then science is good at predicting hallucinations. The same model will work as well. That is the limit to which it can be considered 'right'; everything else is a belief. — Kenosha Kid

Please read above. If I must say anything at this point, it's that science, by its own admission, is tentatively right which is another way of saying it could be completely wrong. I suppose my argument hangs on that, even if small, nonetheless non-zero, possibility.

Yes. Although the God hypothesis we suppose to be compatible with science would not have any criteria by which to assess. Those who believe the Bible to be a perfectly accurate, eternally true, literal description of historical facts, do have criteria: is it consistent with scripture? And that's when things get heated. — Kenosha Kid

:ok:

I think we're climbing the same hill from different sides with different views. I understand science as organized thinking about a determinate subject matter. Inevitably that devolves to what and how about something, but never to any ultimate why. Maybe they unify in a GUT, or maybe the why just isn't a question for science.

In any case - and so far - in order to have a what or a how, you have to have a something to query, and a uniform and unified set of rules on the basis of which to ask - and these may well be a work-in-progress. And these just the objects and tools of the science. I imagine every scientist worth the name has wondered where it all came from, but at the same time recognized there is no scientific approach to that question. Nevertheless, that there are things and rules is a fact, however unaccounted or unaccountable. The usual account for the unaccountable is a god of some kind - and a convenient account it is! So far always and necessarily remaining outside the bounds and beyond the grasp of any organized thinking about any determinate subject matter.

Calling it god may be a matter of convenience, or it may well serve other personal, non-scientific aspects of being and thinking. Historically the Christian God was in Western thinking what got science out of a darkness in bestowing on nature just that quality that made it a subject for science that it had lacked, a uniform and consistent determinateness - a quality of perfection. And ultimately this comes down to how a group of people look at something - their presuppositions. Basic, fundamental, absolute presuppositions run deep and do not easily change. Nor are they usually near the surface - they are what makes any surface possible.

It's more than a little peculiar. Within the science, the scientist denies the possibility of mystery; it is mystery he wants to dissolve into an understanding of what and how. But the ground of the possibility for science, so far, lies exactly in mystery and inaccessible to science. God is not supposed in science, it is presupposed by science. And that which is presupposed was God and now is just called god, but still a good, accurate, and useful name. Comment?

Then, it should, for that reason, accommodate religion. — TheMadFool

In the contrary, for that very reason it should not. It is precisely that theory must be falsifiable, testable, modifiable, or even rejectable, i.e. self-correcting, i.e. not a claim to perfect and eternal truths, that makes them scientific. To count a religion as such a theory would be to make a heinous category error.

If I must say anything at this point, it's that science, by its own admission, is tentatively right which is another way of saying it could be completely wrong. — TheMadFool

Well, it depends what you mean by "completely wrong". Newtonian gravity is good enough to wang a probe around the solar system and land it on an asteroid. I wouldn't say that it was "completely wrong" in that regard. But yes artefacts of models, such as the ether of electromagnetic theory, or Thompson's plum pudding model of atomic theory, were certainly wrong enough!

And these just the objects and tools of the science. I imagine every scientist worth the name has wondered where it all came from, but at the same time recognized there is no scientific approach to that question. — tim wood

Ultimately, that seems right. In terms of intermediate steps, the universe is our lobster, but we can't exactly kick of a universe and study it. The best we are likely to get is a compelling reason for one model over all others.

The usual account for the unaccountable is a god of some kind - and a convenient account it is! — tim wood

Among the religious, yes. It is not typical for scientists to ascribe the as-yet- unexplained to a god, especially in the last 100 years.

Historically the Christian God was in Western thinking what got science out of a darkness in bestowing on nature just that quality that made it a subject for science that it had lacked, a uniform and consistent determinateness - a quality of perfection. And ultimately this comes down to how a group of people look at something - their presuppositions. Basic, fundamental, absolute presuppositions run deep and do not easily change. Nor are they usually near the surface - they are what makes any surface possible. — tim wood

This is effectively saying that if the Christian God had never been believed in, we wouldn't have science. I think that extremely unlikely and another example, like miracles, of rending unto God that which is definitely not God's. I think what you're talking about is the popularisation of the deterministic (and therefore predictable in principle) universe.

I acknowledge, for instance, the importance of Christian scholars of Greek philosophy, but the fact that that was the course of history, it does not follow that that was the only factor nor that, had things been otherwise, we would not have taken a different path to the same route. Determinism underpins teleological modes of our thinking (if I do X, then Y shall follow), and technology is a great driver of science that has informally and indirectly encoded laws for tens of thousands of years. So long as people were erecting buildings and bridges, making vehicles, improving agriculture and manufacturing weapons for wars -- all of which were well underway long before JC appeared -- then science was working along deterministic lines even if it wasn't particularly well formalised. I think that formalisation and generalisation was an inevitable result of the importance of technology.

Lastly, a miracle is itself a suspension of deterministic natural law. So I further disagree that the universe of Christians bears all that much of a resemblance to that of science.

Within the science, the scientist denies the possibility of mystery — tim wood

There are many scientific mysteries. I think you mean miracles.

As noted, Jacalyn Duffyn whose interest in these cases grew from her own expert testimony, found much evidence
— Wayfarer

This in no way constitutes broad concern and interest. — Kenosha Kid

Says you. The facts remain, and they're directly relevant to the OP.

By your argument, the church should have been happy to know God's universe better, but they weren't because, above and beyond the God hypothesis, church dogma placed the Earth at the centre of the universe. — Kenosha Kid

In fact, there were influential clerics who argued strongly against any censure of Galileo whose trial also marked a conflict between progressive and conservative Catholics. And the conservatives won out. I haven't read right into it, but the whole case is not so cut-and-dried as is often portrayed and as I once believed.

Do you mean religious fundamentalists take the good book literally and scientific materialists have their own version of the good book which they too take literally? — TheMadFool

No. Biblical literalism is not hard to understand. It's taking 'the Bible' as the literal 'word of God', dictated by Him and transcribed by men, describing factual events in realistic detail. Then there's the less absolutist version of trying to show that science 'proves' divine cause or intervention, such as you see in Intelligent Design arguments.

Materialism, meanwhile, wants to argue that science 'proves' that there is 'almost certainly' no God (Dawkins' words). That's why they often seize on fundamentalism to support their arguments. But they're both missing the point; whatever G*d is, is forever out of scope for empirical proof. Which leads to 'oh well, you mean it's believing something without evidence.' Again misses the point; to the believer, the Universe itself is evidence. But that is not an empirical claim.

Suffice to say, I think it's perfectly sound for an Alvin Plantinga to say that what we know of the Universe provides a rational warrant for belief in God; but I also think it's rational not to believe it. Science is not going to able to adjuticate that.

I think a lot of what is written and said about G*d is really more about Father Christmas. It's not grounded in an adequate conception of what is being affirmed or denied.

But the ground of the possibility for science, so far, lies exactly in mystery and inaccessible to science. God is not supposed in science, it is presupposed by science. And that which is presupposed was God and now is just called god, but still a good, accurate, and useful name. Comment? — tim wood

Spot on. Although refer to my last comment above.

No. Biblical literalism is not hard to understand. It's taking 'the Bible' as the literal 'word of God', dictated by Him and transcribed by men, describing factual events in realistic detail. Then there's the less absolutist version of trying to show that science 'proves' divine cause or intervention, such as you see in Intelligent Design arguments — Wayfarer

Has anyone, to your knowledge, tried to interpret the Bible as metaphorical and then discovered that the metaphors contained in the Bible correspond to actual truths/facts about the world? For instance, outlandish it may sound, the six days of creation could, with a little bit of imagination and the right creative spark, be mapped onto the scientific theory of the 13.8 billion years ago Big Bang. Is there anyone who undertook such a project?

Materialism, meanwhile, wants to argue that science 'proves' that there is 'almost certainly' no God (Dawkins' words). That's why they often seize on fundamentalism to support their arguments. But they're both missing the point; whatever G*d is, is forever out of scope for empirical proof. Which leads to 'oh well, you mean it's believing something without evidence.' Again misses the point; to the believer, the Universe itself is evidence. But that is not an empirical claim. — Wayfarer

I suppose it's not a matter of choosing a side in the god debate and nor is it a matter of unifying the opposing camps. What we need is an altogether new and fresh perspective on the issue. I wonder what that would look like?

Suffice to say, I think it's perfectly sound for an Alvin Plantinga to say that what we know of the Universe provides a rational warrant for belief in God; but I also think it's rational not to believe it. Science is not going to able to adjuticate that. — Wayfarer

Thus we must adjust to the darkness since no light is near at hand.

I think a lot of what is written and said about G*d is really more about Father Christmas. It's not grounded in an adequate conception of what is being affirmed or denied. — Wayfarer

After all...we are dealing with the ineffable.

Has anyone, to your knowledge, tried to interpret the Bible as metaphorical and then discovered that the metaphors contained in the Bible correspond to actual truths/facts about the world? — TheMadFool

That's more in the domain of hermenuetics and comparative mythology. There are myriad facts but there will always be aspects of religious lore that are inexplicable from a scientific rationalist viewpoint.

Ancient Indian cosmology, at least, whilst obviously containing mythological elements ('turtles all the way down') also envisaged realistic time scales and posited an eternal cycle of creation and destruction. Mahāyāna Buddhist cosmology envisages a universe of countless life-bearing orbs. And so on. But I'm sceptical that any of these claims will get, or even need, any kind of scientific validation. Besides, Buddha's teaching is always concerned with things much closer to home.

One of the themes in comparative religion is study of the convergences between different faith traditions - like the myths, Gods, tales, and so on, that turn up from Iceland to Timbuktu. For instance, the Germanic legend of Barlaam and Josephat turns out to be a retelling of the life of the Buddha.

But the point of all this is that, just because religious mythology isn't literally true, that doesn't make it simple fantasy. Myths and legends carry stories of heros and legendary feats which actually bind cultures together. In ancient India, 'picture show men' used to travel from village to village with scrolls depicting scenes from the Hindu epics, which they would put on a stand and then speak to. They would draw huge crowds. That was how the living culture was conveyed and transmitted.

What we need is an altogether new and fresh perspective on the issue. I wonder what that would look like? — TheMadFool

Examples abound. The entire 'sixties movement', self-awareness training, popular Eastern spiritual movements, syncretism in popular sciences, the 'new physics' which incorporates ideas from Greek and Indian philosophy - there's a huge list. Check out Cults and Cosmic Consciousness Camille Paglia - one of the gems I found via forums. Also American Veda. (I could write 50,000 words on it, but won't ;-) ).

I personally have re-assessed 'classical' Christian philosophy, mainly as a reaction against the two-bit anti-religious polemics of the likes of Hitchens. (Incidentally, you know his brother Peter went on to become something of a bare-knuckle evangalist?) While my orientation is not denominationaly Christian, there is still something at the heart of it I continue to beileve in.

As noted, Jacalyn Duffyn whose interest in these cases grew from her own expert testimony, found much evidence
— Wayfarer

This in no way constitutes broad concern and interest.
— Kenosha Kid

Says you. The facts remain, and they're directly relevant to the OP. — Wayfarer

If you're insisting that one single person's interest constitutes "broad interest", then I'm afraid our disagreements on the English language are rather fundamental, and an impediment to any meaningful conversation.

For instance, the Germanic legend of Barlaam and Josephat turns out to be a retelling of the life of the Buddha. — Wayfarer

I'll have to make a note of that. Thanks.

But the point of all this is that, just because religious mythology isn't literally true, that doesn't make it simple fantasy. — Wayfarer

Correctamundo!

I personally have re-assessed 'classical' Christian philosophy, mainly as a reaction against the two-bit anti-religious polemics of the likes of Hitchens. — Wayfarer

A positive effect as far as I can tell. I like Hitchens. :smile: He seems forthright and if religious apologists find him to be a tough nut to crack then either they aren't genuine or it'll motivate them in re what areas of their worldview they have to work on. It seems you experienced the latter from your encounter with Hitchens.