The Proper Domain of (Natural) Science

Status
Not open for further replies.
The law of gravity means a man should not jump off a cliff and think he can fly unassisted. So yes, not only are there laws which we accept as fact, but they have ethical implications. At the same time, accepting things which are contrary to fact, or hypotheses as fact, can be ethically detrimental. I am not sceptical about the hypothesis of dinosaurs and will accept it if it is scientifically proven to be a fact.
 
The law of gravity means a man should not jump off a cliff and think he can fly unassisted. So yes, not only are there laws which we accept as fact, but they have ethical implications. At the same time, accepting things which are contrary to fact, or hypotheses as fact, can be ethically detrimental.

Agreed. I would point out that the law of gravity has been adjusted (at least, the equations involved) based on new observations at the microscopic level that did not fit with Newton's equations ("Newton's law of gravity") without overturning the entire law. The same thing might be done with a simplistic model of fossilization that does not account for dinosaurs. But I do not think there is any reason to proceed further with this. I think that this point does not detract from what I was aiming to say in the first place, but I am willing to accept that my own imprecision created the confusion. One thing I have always appreciated about you is that you are able to speak concisely and precisely and still be saying a lot. As usual, this has given me plenty to think about. Thank you for that.
 
Justified said:
The problem for me is that utility does not necessarily imply correspondence to reality. For example, Ptolemy's geocentric model and the heliocentric model both are able to make predictions, such as the orbit of planets. Why did we abandon geocentricism? Because heliocentricism, as it stands now, is easier to work with; it's simpler. However, does it being simpler imply the truth of it? No. Perhaps reality is actually very complicated and not simple. We don't know.

I know what you are saying, though. And it's tough to think through these things. The above is why I have a hard time accepting realism. At the same time, something really intuitive tells me that realism is true.
Perhaps I should wait until I actually have time to devote to these things, but I'm snowed in right now, so....

(1) We additionally abandoned absolute geocentrism because experiments contradicted the dynamics (as opposed to kinematics) that it required, according to Newton's laws, and the explanation provided by heliocentrism was more universal (i.e., explains more facts/observations without changing the model) than that of absolute geocentrism. We continue to reject absolute geocentrism because our best dynamical theories prevent it (and also absolute geocentrism is not as universal an explanation). Most debatably abandon relative geocentrism in part for dynamical reasons too.

(2) I cannot find the definition of functional explanation that I liked. I think the definition went something like: "An explanation given in terms of how a system or object works." This seems to me to do well with much of science, especially physics, where at the end of the day, we are describing what objects do by mathematics rather than explaining what objects are (well, then we assume we can get down to a fundamental reality that cannot be broken down further and so require no explanation; but these objects are also understood in terms of their behavior, and so are known by their attributes rather than their essence).

(3) Understanding scientific theories as "functional" in the above manner, I think a sort of realism is still allowed. There is not necessarily a 1 to 1 correspondence between theories and reality or theoretical entities and reality. We construct these things in a manner to let us understand, direct, and predict reality. However, this does not rule out that theories and theoretical entities correspond to real things: they just might not be the exact same real thing that our theories say they are. We have abstracted out a portion of reality for our own benefit.

(4) Since this understanding of scientific theories and unobservable entities allows for a realism and thus for a truth (since truth is that which corresponds to reality), the realism vs instrumentalism debate can now take place as it usually does. Having thought some about the point of utility not implying truth, what do you think of the following (hopefully I haven't been too influenced by the methods of "soft sciences" in thinking about this...)? Going along with the realist argument that "It's impossible for the theory to be so successful if it was not true!"...suppose we say that the reason why the theory works at all is because there is truth in it? Yes, a simpler theory might not encompass as much reality as a more complex theory; or a more complex theory might not encompass as much reality as a simpler theory. Nevertheless, the fact that they work shows they have successfully captured and abstracted a piece of reality. Furthermore, the (theoretical) goals of the realist and instrumentalist differ; I would say our goal is to create functional explanations (that is, working descriptions) of reality--a realist goal. Hence, we have answered the objection of the anti-realist and shown there is still a sort of realism remaining in the theory, theoretical entities, and the goal of constructing them.
 
Last edited:
The resurrection is a fact. Why do I believe it? The witness of God in special revelation. No amount of evidence-hunting will make a fact of revelation to be any more or any less a fact. Evidence-hunting might actually be indicative of a lack of belief in the fact of revelation, and a reliance upon natural evidence might end up destroying the supernatural element in the fact.

I daresay your belief in the witness of Scripture is subsequent to salvation and not the immediate epistemic warrant for trusting that the Resurrection occurred, at the moment you first believed it. I daresay the Apostles, who urged people to question eye witnesses and made a big deal of the alleged actual fact of Christ's Resurrection, not merely saying "take our/God's word for it, because we're good for it," is a strong challenge to the "anti-evidentialist" perspective you're promoting. We are not like the Muslims, who can't believe anything that isn't written in their Scriptures. Sola Scriptura, not Solo Scripturo.

"No amount of evidence-hunting will make a fact of revelation to be any more or any less a fact."

Acts 1"...the apostles whom He had chosen, 3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs..."

The fact that they are not included in the canon is warrant enough to conclude that the methods used to prove the truth of God's Word need not be solely constrained to a rote recitation thereof, but can incorporate non-inspired information content. If your statement is to be taken in opposition to presenting confirmatory evidence, why did Jesus perform these proofs?

This also applies to creation. It did not come about by natural causes. So why should an individual who believes in creation seek to explain it by an appeal to evidence which could only suggest it came about by natural causes?

Evidence does not "suggest," that is the Reification Fallacy. Evidence can only be used to suggest naturalism when interpreted through a naturalistic worldview. It is the responsibility of the Christian as a steward to interpret all available evidence through the Biblical worldview. This will not conclude naturalism. I am not appealing to naturalism. Nor would I appeal to evidence to prove Christianity. I would appeal to the Bible to explain the evidence. The purpose of investigating non-Scriptural truths is to demonstrate the consistency of the Biblical worldview, thus glorifying God and testifying to the unsaved so that they have no excuse.
 
I daresay your belief in the witness of Scripture is subsequent to salvation and not the immediate epistemic warrant for trusting that the Resurrection occurred, at the moment you first believed it.

The witness of Scripture is true whether I believe it or not. My epistemic warrant for believing a fact of special revelation is the fact it has been specially revealed. If it were not specially revealed it could not be called a fact of special revelation. The apostles were specifically commissioned to serve as witnesses in this respect. So appealing to them as eye- and ear-witnesses depends upon the validity of their commission as apostles which was established in an extraordinary way.

See John 5-8, and 1 John 5. The idea that the witness of Christ depends upon the testimony of men is contrary to the claims of Christ Himself. It would make the validity of the court dependent on the witnesses who sit in the chair, when the opposite is the case.
 
" My epistemic warrant for believing a fact of special revelation is the fact it has been specially revealed."

Of course, but what led you to conclude that it was specially revealed? That's what I'm getting at. I believe you're putting the cart before the horse.
 
Of course, but what led you to conclude that it was specially revealed? That's what I'm getting at. I believe you're putting the cart before the horse.[/SIZE][/FONT]

If putting God the speaker before man the hearer is putting the cart before the horse then I would suggest that cart is never going to be drawn anywhere and the cart is sure to be drawing the horse.

You could not know the resurrection from the dead apart from special revelation. It requires a miracle. If God did not do it, who did? Since God did it, who is competent to know the mind of the Lord in order to reveal it?
 
Of course, but what led you to conclude that it was specially revealed? That's what I'm getting at. I believe you're putting the cart before the horse.

If putting God the speaker before man the hearer is putting the cart before the horse then I would suggest that cart is never going to be drawn anywhere and the cart is sure to be drawing the horse.

You could not know the resurrection from the dead apart from special revelation. It requires a miracle. If God did not do it, who did? Since God did it, who is competent to know the mind of the Lord in order to reveal it?

Sigh. Rather than belabor this point, I think I'll shelve it for a discussion on epistemology instead. I'm replying to something else in this thread in the meantime, though.
 
I think several of the esteemed gentlemen commenting here indicated that they think that scientific endeavor into determining what happened in the past is completely futile, and that is not a justifiable position.

The point is that there are no ultimate answers from an evidential and empirical viewpoint.

Nevertheless, there are ultimate answers. The fact that merely depending on one mode of reason or inquiry, be it philosophy, empiricism, sense experience, testimony, etc, one cannot formulate a complete evaluation of some tangible object or abstract relationship between multiple objects is irrelevant to the question of whether one can do so at all, when one does not limit oneself to only one or a few modes of inquiry or reason. Evidence is simply stuff. One can use evidence and empirical studies on evidence to arrive at real, not conjectural, truth, because one is not limited to only staring at the evidence, but is allowed to reason about it, using common sense, induction, referencing what one knows from theology, etc.

So then your statement is ultimately not very meaningful.

The Christian witness should not be associated with the transient theories of an ever changing world and thereby be discredited.

You believe things at this very moment which are likely to change. Maybe you idle your car to warm it up, but it's fuel injected. Maybe you blow on a wound. Maybe you eat, or don't eat, some food because it's 'good' or 'bad' because of just one ingredient in particular. The possibilities are limitless. The fact is that you don't see that as "association with transient theories which discredit me," so one can only assume you mean something different in your above sentence than simply affirming some truth which may change. Why does one hurt your witness and not the other? Or perhaps you think there's a difference because you have the opinion that Christian scientists (not the religion) are a special case, and that by virtue of doing science and being Christian at the same time, they are somehow wedding theology to whatever they might happen to conclude in their research? I don't think that's fair.

Creation science creates a praeternatural world in which the supernatural and natural are mingled together. The scientific theory is patronised by "biblical authority," so that it becomes impossible to evaluate the theory by a scientific process without calling into question the authority of special revelation. This virtually sets up creation scientists as prophets who deliver the infallible will of God with respect to every thing that is dug up from the earth.

Respectfully, this is hokey. It seems to me as if you have very strong derisive opinions regarding one particular belief which is for you emotionally charged. I don't know what your personal experience is with it, but it definitely comes across as if you consider your experience to be sufficient to determine what is true in this case. Ironic, considering you've been rejecting the appeal to experience and insisting that Scripture alone ought be used, something you are not here doing in your criticism. It is absolutely a straw man and I would like to simply dismiss your assertions as silly, unless of course you'd care to give strong support via citation of that which you are objecting to.

If dinosaurs existed I have no difficulty in accepting it, but I would like to know on what basis I am obliged to accept it when special revelation does not require it and general revelation contradicts it.

The fossils in the earth are 'general revelation.' So rather than 'contradicting' it, in fact, general revelation is on the side of supporting it. But realistically, I wonder why you would take the default position of rejecting it with extreme skepticism, when I am confident you do not approach all other things in your life with this same extreme skepticism, despite the fact that special revelation does not require you to believe that
- you can pay for your gasoline with a credit card
- you are presently in good/bad physical health
- you can wake up before the sunrise if you set an alarm to do so
- the people on PuritanBoard are real people and not robots, or for that matter one person with a thousand profiles, performing an experiment on you.

You take certain things for granted and take the default position of accepting them as true all the time, even when special revelation does not require it -- but have for some inscrutable reason chosen to take the opposite approach with just one specific selection of claims about the world.

This is incredulous to me and is not at all accepted as a reasonable default. You must have some other reason for rejecting the existence of dinosaurs which has not been specified. Your choice is not quite so simple as you have portrayed it.

 
Vox, Do you expect me to read your post after you shrugged mine off with a sigh?

The fossils in the earth are not general revelation. General revelation is needed to examine what they are in the first place.
 
Vox, Do you expect me to read your post after you shrugged mine off with a sigh?

The fossils in the earth are not general revelation. General revelation is needed to examine what they are in the first place.

I sighed because from my perspective, your response appeared to miss my point, and rather than simply repeat it, and potentially irritate you by giving you the impression that I'm talking down to you by restating my position with more sentences and different vocabulary, I thought the more charitable thing would be to let it be for another time so that looking at it with fresh eyes might yield more understanding.

I apparently don't understand how you're defining general revelation either. I understood Scripture as special revelation, and Creation and Conscience as general revelation. I doubt you're excluding fossils from creation, since they do exist, but then I don't know why you'd be defining general revelation to not include all of creation, which to me would seem to be at odds with Romans 1.

If you would feel frustrated explaining, I sympathize, and because I'm becoming tired from natural causes anyway, getting rest would be my amicable recommendation for us both. At least, I think I won't try to continue pressing the issue much more in this thread.
 
Ok 'cause I would use the term 'creation' to refer to everything that exists. As put forth here http://www.gotquestions.org/general-special-revelation.html[/SIZE][/FONT]

I am not sure what you understand sin and punishment to be, because these clearly exist but were not a part of the creation.

That article accurately describes general revelation as something which refers to the knowledge of God. If you accept that I cannot see how you can regard "fossils" as a part of general revelation.
 
The whole creation groans and travails .... sin has affected all aspects of creation. Sin is not a separate part of the universe that can be distinguished from the universe. All that exists bears at once both the mark of the Creator as well as the corruption of the Fall. The fact that sin was not an 'original creation' does not mean that the effects of sin are not part of the universe (creation). If a man was created, and in sin that man died, is his body not part of creation? It is. The fact that it only died because of the consequences of sin does not remove the dead body from being a sign of the care, power and genius of the Creator.

My understanding of your position is that tangible objects which are in a specific state as a result of sin are not part of general revelation.
My counter to this is that all things that were created are in a specific state as the result of sin, so that if the above is taken to its logical conclusion, there is no such thing as general revelation.
This being clearly untenable for you, the alternative conclusion is that all things are part of general revelation. This is my position.
 
I can see you are using the word "Creation" broadly, whereas I am drawing a more specific distinction between creation and providence. I would say that creation ("things that are made") should be distinguished from providence in this discussion because creation has been affected by sin and this has an impact on general revelation.

But this is tangential. General revelation is knowledge of God which is "generally" known through natural means. The texts which are used to prove "general revelation" all speak about God's glory and attributes or moral government over man. I take it to be a precondition of natural science since without the knowledge of God man could not know anything, and what unbelieving man knows he knows by suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness; but the scientific enterprise itself is not general revelation in the proper sense of the term. It depends upon general revelation but should not be identified with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top