In Which I Pay for Following Links
Metacatholic reports that Jim West has taken leave of his senses, and since I always read whatever Doug has to say (though not Jim)*, I wandered over to see what would make Doug say such a thing.
I found there some odd notes on the relationship of science and faith, as report by Doug of Jim, and then I did it … I followed the link to see whether I agreed with Doug’s reading of what Jim had said. Thus I am punished for some small number of my sins+.
I find there the following quote:
… Science presupposes the absence of God. Biblical faith presupposes his presence. Both presuppositions cannot be true.
I can think of dozens of elements of science that might be reasonably regarded as contradictory with similar dozens of elements of Biblical faith (whatever that might be), but that isn’t one of them.
But then I thought about it a bit more. If one defines “Biblical faith” as, for example, believing everything about just about everything that the Biblical writers believed, then it would be contradictory. For example, if one believes that events all happen by specific intervention of God, as in “he makes his sun to rise in the morning,” (Matthew 5:45) then that is incompatible with science.
On the other hand, if that is what is meant by “Biblical faith” then let me have nothing whatsoever to do with it. I’ll take science every time.
I don’t happen to think revelation works that way, and I couldn’t possibly care less about what the Biblical writers believed about the physical world–the proper subject of scientific study. I personally am very glad that scientists exclude miraculous, divine activities from their studies.
Not to do so would be much like concluding that a certain process didn’t work because someone wandered by and smashed the test tube before it finished, or that a certain chemical reaction would transform lead into gold because someone came by and swiped the lead, leaving gold in its place.
*Actually, I practice both of these things in the same way I practice “Biblical faith,” i.e. whenever I can figure out just what I mean. (On Biblical faith, read the rest of the post already!)
+OK, all snarkiness aside, I’m sure Jim West is a fine person, and many of my friends seem to think he’s very interesting.
no- not nice at all really. now who are you? i’ve not so much as heard mention before today.
Well, the “General Snarkiness” category should have been an indication.
On the other hand, I do actually agree with Doug’s assessment of your post.
Actually, you’ve heard mention of me, but not this blog. I blog on Biblical topics at the Participatory Bible Study blog, where I claimed not to link to you whilst doing so, and you said (correctly) that I was an oath violator. (See this post.)
Henry, I’m surprised at your suggestion that
I thought your position, like mine, was that God is the ultimate cause behind everything that happened in the world, including evolution which is therefore “theistic”, but that with rare exceptions he works according to scientific laws which he has chosen to follow. Now I don’t claim that the biblical authors’ worldview is exactly this. But the point of what they are saying in this verse and others is that God does faithfully follow his own laws in the world, every day and (in this context) irrespective of human good or evil. We know more of the scientific principles behind this, but not more of the faithful character of God in working according to them.
OK, Peter, it was right after 12 hours of editing on a dense manuscript related to chronology.
What I meant to say was “a literal interpretation” of that verse, as in God specifically directing the event other than as a matter of constantly maintaining laws.
No, I don’t think that, properly understood, making the sun to rise in the morning is in any way incompatible with science, since I also believe that the only reason there are laws in the universe is that God consistently causes them to be, thus I can say “God makes (put any event here), and at least in that sense, it’s true.
I will write more on this topic this morning, hopefully more enlightening and less snarky.
OK, Henry. I’m still not quite sure what distinction you are trying to make between “God specifically directing the event” and him “constantly maintaining laws”. I know you don’t accept a deistic picture in which God set up an independent mechanism working according to certain laws then sat back and watched what he planned happen – with perhaps an occasional finger poked into it. If your picture is the same as mine, that God acts consistently according to his laws to cause the sunrise, then how is that different from “God specifically directing the event”? Or does “specifically” in your mind imply “extraordinarily” or “inconsistently”, i.e. something which might be called a miracle?
That’s it. That’s the only way I can see that one would take the Biblical faith (a phrase I don’t like, but I’m going to write a post about), and say it’s inconsistent with science.
If God is 100% consistent in application of his laws, that cannot, with the exception of a miracle, be distinguished from the operation of natural law. But if God is 100% conscious of and involved with his laws, he is not the distant God of deism who simply set it all in motion.
One could even say that scientists aren’t actually studying what they think they’re studying, it’s just indistinguishable to the scientific method.
I’m probably digging myself in deeper here … more coffee!!!
In this context I was struck by the GK Chesterton quote here.