Todd, I understand this and am fine with it. What I am not fine with is even operationally holding a view that one believes contradicts Scripture. Could I operationally hold JEDP? No.
Geocentrism?
- Thread starter thbslawson
- Start date
- Status
Todd, I understand this and am fine with it. What I am not fine with is even operationally holding a view that one believes contradicts Scripture. Could I operationally hold JEDP? No.
Even if I were persuaded that Scripture requires a geocentric view, I don't know that this would force me to conclude that heliocentric calculations and the physics that goes with it are categorically contrary to Scripture. They would be contrary to Scripture only if we regarded them as ultimate reality. But why not simply say, "I just don't understand right now how this squares with Scripture, and I may never understand. But it works for our limited purposes, and God knows how it squares with Scripture." This isn't to believe a contradiction; it's a recognition of our limitations as creatures.
The reason evolution is regarded differently is because it includes historical claims rather than merely claims of operational science. I can use the rotation of the earth in the manner described by SRoper to launch a satellite, but I can't use evolution to do anything except make inaccurate historical claims.
By the way, there is a little bit of a parallel discussion going on in another thread that some may wish to follow. It starts here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f16/ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-debate-upcoming-81743/#post1031501
Doesn't fly: geocentrism here is a categorical truth claim, meaning it would preclude heliocentrism even provisionally. Regarding heliocentrism as ultimate reality is something we shouldn't do: but we're talking about physical reality, not ultimate reality.
What prevents a scientist from using something he believes to be technically incorrect because it is still an accurate way of getting a result that actually arises from some other, unknown cause for which he does not yet have a model? When studying electrons in a transistor, I pretend that an electron wavefunction is not in any definite position. It's not just considered to be in an unknown position. It's considered to be literally not in any particular position until measured. In fact, it's in a linear combination of all possible positions. I don't really believe this. I don't think that when electrons aren't being observed, they are in a linear combination of all possible positions in a strict, literal sense. I think it's an accurate way of doing QM calculations and that probably one day we'll find a different way of explaining what is happening. In the meantime, it's the only model I have, and it works for my limited purposes. I don't have to believe it's the end of the story in order to use it. Likewise, a hermeneutical geocentrist who is a scientist might use a calculation that involves the earth rotating while believing that really the earth doesn't rotate; he just doesn't understand and may never understand how his observations and physics can be reconciled with what he knows by divine revelation. (Again, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that Scripture teaches a geocentric cosmology).
Except that in this case a) there is a different model already b) he is flatly contradicting this model in his calculations. The problem is that in your case, you are using a provisional model because you have no answer to the question. The hermaneutical geocentrist, on the other hand, would be using a model that flatly contradicts what he knows to be true, acting contrary to his beliefs.
Why would it be a "sin?" If the individual believes the model has some functional, temporary validity the individual may faithfully carry out his functional, temporary work without any feeling that he is compromising his religious beliefs.
As already pointed out, this is not my position. My position is that the science is "functional," an human construct, and quite within that dominion which God has given to man in giving the earth to the sons of men.
To switch to a geocentric model would, at least in the short term, make a lot of things more difficult to account for. An example would be the relativistic correction for the hydrogen atom. I don't know how to account for that equation without relativity. I'm not aware that anyone does.
Think about how much scientific knowledge has grown in the last couple centuries compared to the rest of history, and then try to imagine that we've only barely scratched the surface. What if what we "know" of physics is still only a drop in an ocean? We used to regard matter and energy as two independent things. More recently we have begun to derive a relationship between them. How well do we really know what matter is? What motion is? What rest is? What space is? Don't even get me started on time. It may be that for some reason unbeknownst to us, our current understanding of physics is intricately tied to the heliocentric model we have been using since before we discovered said physics, in which case we simply cannot get the same results in a geocentric model, at least not without unnecessarily difficult explanations. It may be that one day new discoveries about the nature of physical reality will make the whole debate irrelevant or else will give a physical account for the earth being at rest. In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with using whatever is most useful, even if (for the sake of discussion) we believe it is technically inaccurate and may one day be superseded.
If it isn't true, then it doesn't work. Science is the study and categorization of creation as per Genesis 2. If Scripture teaches something, then science should be bound by that teaching along with every other discipline. If geocentrism is correct biblical teaching, then Christians ought to do science from that perspective. If, on the other hand, Scriptural language does not contradict other models, then the Christian is free to use them.
In which case one could be a scientific heliocentrist and a theological geocentrist. But earlier you seemed not to agree with this position.
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
The forces at work that such a model, although errant, measure, and prove to be workable, obviously show something. Just not necessarily what secular science says they do. There is no sin in utilizing such a model. To the Pythagoreans, his theorem was a part of a cultic construct, and to them it indicated mystical things, all false. Use of it is not an endorsement of such. To say it would be is carrying an argument to an absurd extreme, Phillip, our beloved philosophy major... 
What if they only appear to contradict because at this point we don't have a good enough understanding of what motion and rest really are to account for why the heliocentric model works as well as it does or for how the earth can be at rest? Regardless, none of this can be allowed to have any bearing on the interpretation of Scripture.
I disagreed with making biblical geocentrism nothing more than a "focus" which minimised its intention to speak of facts in a full-orbed way. To make sense of the creation, narrative phenomena, poetical descriptions, prophetic utterances, one must begin with geocentrism as more than merely focusing attention on the earth.
In relation to another statement above, human dominion might have continued with a geocentric agenda and now be miles ahead of where it is today. We will not know. The fact is, under human dominion, all the expense and effort has been invested into the heliocentric agenda, and the science now reflects it. We work with what we have. We are not required to do more or less.
They don't appear to contradict. They do. One would have to argue that the heliocentric model doesn't actually work, but only appears to work.
Except that the created order does not contradict Scripture. If you see a contradiction, one of the two has been misinterpreted. Chrysostom and Athanasius both concluded the Scripture teaches a flat earth. Are we entirely certain that our conviction of the contrary is not based on science rather than hermaneutics?
If the foundation is flawed, you salvage what you can and build a new foundation.
That sounds like classic fundamentalist separatism to me, and quite unlike your usual perspective. We have to work in the world the best way we can. We do not have the power to Christianise everything to make it suit our ideal world. Because of the soveriegnty of God and His preserving grace the world does not need to be Christianised in order for a Christian to work in it.
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
That's a bare assertion, Phillip, and an irrelevant conclusion. Any contradiction is only in the conclusions drawn by secularists from the data. We are free to utilize the data without agreeing with the conclusions.
Certainly a strange turn of affairs.
Which is why I can't find dogmatic geocentrism a plausible position, given my hermaneutic. I don't think science (actual science) has the ability to contradict Scripture.
Science would say our brethren who have fallen asleep in Christ are dead and gone. Scripture provides an extensive view which enables us to say they live. Science can neither validate or invalidate that view. If the problem is with the word "contradict" you can supplement it with a word you feel comfortable with. But it shouldn't be surprising to a philosophical mind that "working," "functional" human constructs can contradict Scripture when it is obvious those constructs are not absolute. The desire to harmonise will only serve to create an environment in which neither are able to function according to their full scope.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Would you say the eyewitnesses of The Resurrection stated and testified to observable scientific fact? Just thinking out loud, in that just because others did not see Him alive could we say they(witnesses) did not observe and state a fact they saw Him alive.
I was referring to our brethren who now enjoy the blessings of the intermediate state, which is hidden from earthly observation. The resurrection of our Lord involved an observable miracle in this world which was demonstrated by many infallible proofs to eye-witnesses. Empirical science could say nothing about the former but it could validate that our Lord was alive.
Science can't address metaphysics, only physical phenomena. Is the physical location of the earth a physical phenomenon?
Yes, but "location" requires a point of reference in relation to something else. The reference point can only be relative so far as empirical science is concerned; hence the conclusion can only be relative. Scripture's ultimate perspective viewed from its absolute reference point cannot be validated or invalidated by the relative findings of physical science.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
I may be misunderstanding here, but the word "functional" suggests to me that the science isn't actually arriving at truth. Surely it must have some connection to reality though, or we would not expect the models to work as well as they do? So I guess my question is: Would it be accurate to say that what science finds is (provisionally) true with respect to its own domain and perspective? And so a sort of scientific realism can still be maintained (maybe it could be called "restricted" or "limited" realism)? It finds truth relative to its own perspective and deals with relative reality--relative to the limits science has placed on itself and carries with itself.armourbearer said:
So for example, one could actually hold as provisionally true that the earth goes around the sun with respect to observation, appearances, experimentation, human thought forms, but that in absolute reality, geocentrism is the case? (Of course, as noted, it could be someday that geocentrism is what is held as provisionally true in the sciences) So then, holding geocentrism and heliocentrism only contradict if we do not qualify their propositions with respect to their perspectives on reality that they speak to, but when those qualifications are made, no real contradiction forms since the two statements are affirmed in different senses (one with respect to one perspective, the other with respect to another perspective, which perspective is ultimate reality)?
I know we have discussed this before, but I'm trying to wrap my mind around how science can be described as merely "functional" yet still be said to arrive at provisionally held truths. I certainly appreciate something Mr. Bottomly said in a previous thread about how heliocentrism is a shortcut we have found to describe God's providential governing of the universe, and it makes me wonder whether we might be able to hold a sort of scientific realism still, instead of being forced into instrumentalism, anti-realism, or other non-realist views, e.g., that heliocentrism is nothing but a model that works and has nothing to say about reality--whether that be absolute reality (which is rightfully denied to science, it seems to me) or relative reality.
This seems to require dual realities, which I would steer away from because we would end up existentialist. There is only one reality; that is the one God created and reveals to us. Within this one reality there are diverse relationships, and these diversities are complicated by the fall. It will be impossible to go any further without writing a thesis on the worldview of Scripture, but reformed people in general accept that sinful human beings with all their follies are permitted to exercise dominion in this world under a restraining and forbearing Providence, and that this is subservient to the higher redemptive purpose whereby God saves, gathers, and builds up His elect in the world. This worldview should allow reformed people to work in the world and to accredit "scientific observation" according to a temporal perspective without granting ultimate epistemic validity to a fallen worldview.
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
I heard they, or some, reckon that our solar system is inside a galaxy that is near or at the centre of the universe. Even the scientist who mentioned it and is not Christian said he found it strange and as if there was some significance to it.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Thank you. I'm still a little confused but the process of eliminating what is incorrect does have its uses. One more round of questions for me today, and then I'll have to try to catch you again tomorrow if you are on.
I remember when we discussed Turretin speaking of how seemingly contradictory statements between philosophy and theology could be resolved because philosophy was speaking according to natural causes while theology supernatural. While that is limited to understanding the difference between ordinary Providence and the miraculous, perhaps it can be extended to include our observations of ordinary Providence, and the resolution of the miraculous with ordinary Providence could be understood as a special case? If so, how does this resolution differ from saying heliocentrism is provisionally, observationally true while geocentrism is true according to absolute reality?
As another question, is there something special going on with the heliocentrism vs geocentrism debate? Because in this particular case "location" and "movement" actually are relative notions (and I'm guessing you mean philosophically relative; not necessarily scientifically relative), can we actually say both are true in different senses, though we could not say that in general with similar situations?
Finally, your mention of "worldview" reminded me of another geocentrist who claimed that we can trust science to deliver us truth when it is dealing with observation, while we can be suspicious when it is dealing with theory. So like some YECs distinguish between operational and origins science, the former being trustworthy and must be non-contradictory to Scripture while the latter not (but since not trustworthy, we must bring origins science into non-contradiction with a Scriptural worldview; hence the use of Creation science); this fellow distinguished between observation and theory, the former being trustworthy and must be non-contradictory to Scripture while the latter not (but since not trustworthy, we must bring theories into non-contradiction with a Scriptural worldview; hence the use of scientific geocentrist models).
Would this be one of the ideas you have in mind (without having you to write out a thesis!
)? While observations are theory-laden, sure, there is still a distinction between observation and a theory to explain them, and as that geocentrist attempted to demonstrate, coming up with a theory involves the processes of the mind in such a way that they can be worldview dependent, and so subject to the noetic effects of sin (edit: I might as well link to it: http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/physdraft.doc).
It is this part that I am having difficulty understanding: What does it mean to "accredit "scientific observation" according to a temporal perspective"? That this means we can accredit it as provisionally true or as a relative reality has been denied. Would "perspective on reality" be a better term? Could there be multiple perspectives for a single reality? Basically, if this does allow a type of scientific realism, what sort of realism is it, and if it does not allow for realism what is it allowing for? It seems impossible to deny a scientific realism and not hold science to be (provisionally, given its probabilistic nature) true in some manner (if truth corresponds with reality), so this question implicitly also asks: if this allows science to be true, precisely in what way is it true? If no realism is being held to, then is science giving nothing but convenient fictions? If so, then why do the models work so well; even well enough that the assumption of their truth allows them to predict things theoretically that are not confirmed experimentally until later; even well enough to sometimes begrudgingly convince even hardened skeptics of their "truth"? (I realize I am stretching terminology a bit; "realism" or "anti-realism" in the philosophy of science is referring to unobservables, not observables)armourbearer said:
I remember when we discussed Turretin speaking of how seemingly contradictory statements between philosophy and theology could be resolved because philosophy was speaking according to natural causes while theology supernatural. While that is limited to understanding the difference between ordinary Providence and the miraculous, perhaps it can be extended to include our observations of ordinary Providence, and the resolution of the miraculous with ordinary Providence could be understood as a special case? If so, how does this resolution differ from saying heliocentrism is provisionally, observationally true while geocentrism is true according to absolute reality?
As another question, is there something special going on with the heliocentrism vs geocentrism debate? Because in this particular case "location" and "movement" actually are relative notions (and I'm guessing you mean philosophically relative; not necessarily scientifically relative), can we actually say both are true in different senses, though we could not say that in general with similar situations?
Finally, your mention of "worldview" reminded me of another geocentrist who claimed that we can trust science to deliver us truth when it is dealing with observation, while we can be suspicious when it is dealing with theory. So like some YECs distinguish between operational and origins science, the former being trustworthy and must be non-contradictory to Scripture while the latter not (but since not trustworthy, we must bring origins science into non-contradiction with a Scriptural worldview; hence the use of Creation science); this fellow distinguished between observation and theory, the former being trustworthy and must be non-contradictory to Scripture while the latter not (but since not trustworthy, we must bring theories into non-contradiction with a Scriptural worldview; hence the use of scientific geocentrist models).
Would this be one of the ideas you have in mind (without having you to write out a thesis!
)? While observations are theory-laden, sure, there is still a distinction between observation and a theory to explain them, and as that geocentrist attempted to demonstrate, coming up with a theory involves the processes of the mind in such a way that they can be worldview dependent, and so subject to the noetic effects of sin (edit: I might as well link to it: http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/physdraft.doc).
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
I guess my point is that "science" did verify the resurrection.
Brett- yes, there is various measurable evidence that our galaxy is at the center.
The real problem with this discussion is that we don't have the geocentric PhDs in physics and astronomy on here. If we did, a lot of things would be explained well and a lot of modern theory mysteries which are not explained or have inner contradictions would be detailed. But it is just us. Nobody is on the level of a Bouw or a Selbrede or the other guys for the science debates.
The heliocentric model works well, but the "empty space" model of the universe does not. Even the secularists will admit that there must be far more mass than we can observe. One discussion is- does the earth orbit the sun, or the sun the earth? Another discussion is the "firmament"- or, what exactly is space. Selbrede refers briefly at the end of his article to why the universe is not anywhere as large as modern theory claims it to be and is a rotating massive firmament. Modern science gets closer all the time to a firmament- enormous mass we can't see, call it dark matter or something else, it exists.
Also, science does not think about where Jesus went when he bodily rose from the earth. He is in time and place, in a glorified body. Where? Geocentrists say in the third heaven, outside the visible universe which is much smaller than postulated. That opens up a whole other discussion.
I think if people read the actual materials by the geocentric scientists, instead of reading posters here, they would be far more interested and open to the subject.
Because in this particular case "location" and "movement" actually are relative notions
Raymond- again- Einstein himself understood that the experimental evidence of his day showed conclusively that during the part of the year the earth is supposed to be hurling towards a star as it orbits the sun, and six months later is hurling away from the star on the other side of the orbit, we get a zero value for the change in the speed of light. Einstein himself understood that light is a wave and normally you would add the velocity of the earth in one direction and subtract it in the other.
This is no more relative than an ambulance pitch changing as it approaches you and then passes you. This is basic wave physics.
Einstein understood this, he realized the implications, and therefore since everybody "knows" the earth is not at rest, he formulated a complicated relativity theory to explain the results. And that undergirding mentality, like Darwinian evolution in biology, pervades almost everything nowadays.
It doesn't make Einstein wrong and the geocentrists with classic wave behavior right, but understand that geocentrists reject that relativity theory. And again, you can argue with people here of course, but if you read some of the detailed rebuttals to relativity by the big brains, you would perhaps be more sympathetic to geocentricity.
The real problem with this discussion is that we don't have the geocentric PhDs in physics and astronomy on here. If we did, a lot of things would be explained well and a lot of modern theory mysteries which are not explained or have inner contradictions would be detailed. But it is just us. Nobody is on the level of a Bouw or a Selbrede or the other guys for the science debates.
The heliocentric model works well, but the "empty space" model of the universe does not. Even the secularists will admit that there must be far more mass than we can observe. One discussion is- does the earth orbit the sun, or the sun the earth? Another discussion is the "firmament"- or, what exactly is space. Selbrede refers briefly at the end of his article to why the universe is not anywhere as large as modern theory claims it to be and is a rotating massive firmament. Modern science gets closer all the time to a firmament- enormous mass we can't see, call it dark matter or something else, it exists.
Also, science does not think about where Jesus went when he bodily rose from the earth. He is in time and place, in a glorified body. Where? Geocentrists say in the third heaven, outside the visible universe which is much smaller than postulated. That opens up a whole other discussion.
I think if people read the actual materials by the geocentric scientists, instead of reading posters here, they would be far more interested and open to the subject.
Because in this particular case "location" and "movement" actually are relative notions
Raymond- again- Einstein himself understood that the experimental evidence of his day showed conclusively that during the part of the year the earth is supposed to be hurling towards a star as it orbits the sun, and six months later is hurling away from the star on the other side of the orbit, we get a zero value for the change in the speed of light. Einstein himself understood that light is a wave and normally you would add the velocity of the earth in one direction and subtract it in the other.
This is no more relative than an ambulance pitch changing as it approaches you and then passes you. This is basic wave physics.
Einstein understood this, he realized the implications, and therefore since everybody "knows" the earth is not at rest, he formulated a complicated relativity theory to explain the results. And that undergirding mentality, like Darwinian evolution in biology, pervades almost everything nowadays.
It doesn't make Einstein wrong and the geocentrists with classic wave behavior right, but understand that geocentrists reject that relativity theory. And again, you can argue with people here of course, but if you read some of the detailed rebuttals to relativity by the big brains, you would perhaps be more sympathetic to geocentricity.
- Status
