Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:58:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
298 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> Fine - now we're on a philospohical discussion...
Cool! That's all I wanted, since that's what you said that's explicitly what
you were after in this thread.
> The question of whether the Bible's version of creationism is compatible with
> evolutionary theory is fundamentally a question of interpretation.
EXACTLY!
And let me just say you did an excellent job of discussing the matter. It's
all interpretive. The point of course being that I think you're leaning
towards literalism, and hence saying that evolution does NOT mesh with the
Bible, because you're interpreting the Bible as literal. Yes?
So the real question now becomes which way is the 'right' way to interpret
the Bible? And really, we can't easily dispute the issue. Were I Christian,
I'd probably go for figurative interpretation (obviously). Why? Because I
can't bring myself to interpret it literally.
Let's look at the logic you provided. God put information into the Bible for
a REASON. If it was something we could learn from our natural surroundings
(like, say, gravity), then He wouldn't put it in. (Am I right so far?) So
basically, God's act of including it in the Bible implies that the Bible
explains aspects of the physical world which we couldn't otherwise determine
difinitively through science? (Not sure that's the jump you'd make)
That doesn't make sense to me. Why? Because it doesn't satisfy my curiosity.
Or, more definitively, I don't think it would satisfy everyone's curiosity.
What if I wanted to know the order in which specific species were created
(if not all together) What if I wanted to know what time of day specific
creatures were created? How about the universe BEFORE Earth? Clearly, to say
that we have the scientific capability to find out these answers and not
what's in the Bible doesn't make sense.
But let's assume you don't want to take it that far. Let's assume that you
simply are saying that that which is in the Bible is there without dispute,
and that we may or may not be able to understand (through science) the facts
that are therein. Ok, why would God do that? What's the difference between
disclosing those facts, and disclosing other facts? How about hiding those
facts? But you still have the recourse of saying "We might never know, but
there IS a reason." I.E. God works in mysterious ways, yes? Well, sorry, I
just don't buy that. And that's where we're forced to stop debating if
that's where you want to go, because it's merely a point at which we can
only agree to disagree. Unless you think we can take it deeper, which I'd
love to do.
Anyway, your thoughts?
> (digression - off-topic)
> Science began as a means to better understand God's creation, and has
> subsequently moved beyond a theistic foundation to a secular foundation.
Is there REALLY anything wrong with this so long as the secular foundation
doesn't reject the theistic? For example, could we have proven gravity with
the Bible (other than, say, dropping it repeatedly? :) Are we wrong to
believe in gravity, or that which science teaches?
And the REAL follow up to that is, what if the two disagree? I assume you'll
say that science is necessarily wrong due to human error, though :)
> But you have to be able to recognize
> your biases and see beyond them too. If all confirmatory evidence is accepted
> and all non-confirmatory evidence is rejected, you cannot see beyond bias.
VERY true. And were I more involved in the evolutionary debate, I might
dispute your own adherence to such a statement (because I see that ALL the
time from religious types), but because I haven't been involved in such,
I'll merely remind you of the fact that you mustn't do the same. For
example, you can't prove that the Bible is correct, and hence, as
non-confirmatory evidence, you must accept it as possibility, so that you
may be aware of your own bias. :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Dave - you get waaaaay beyond yourself when you assume what I mean and then build upon that assumption repeatedly. It might be far easier to simply make an assumption show it's conclusion and wait for a response... (IMHO) As to the topic: No, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) I suppose we stop the debate, since I will say - that is what I'm saying - sorta. The literal interpretation says that God is the creator. Does the computer understand why it is programmed the way it is? Even if the software writer told it, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) I don't reject science. Actually I find that science supports the Bible. Many would reject science when it does that, but that's their own problem. (...) No. Actually, it's not so much due to error as it is to a lack of understanding. Science (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Fine - now we're on a philospohical discussion... The question of whether the Bible's version of creationism is compatible with evolutionary theory is fundamentally a question of interpretation. There are 2 fundamental, particularly relevant, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
