Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[SteveII]

To sum this up, I believe that where core theology is not on the line, we can listen to what science thinks is the best explanation and go forward to see where that leads.

Why should this matter...why is this an acceptable metric for exemption to the very standards you propose..and are you even applying the method you offered by making this exemption?

Because science is always subject to change (and often does). To make a statement like "my theology will change as science proposes new theories" is even worse. It has to be a case by case basis. Is x scientific theory compatible with y theological concept? Perhaps we need to adjust our theological understanding because new facts come to light. My caution is scientific theories. By necessity, they presuppose naturalism and as such may be wrong--especially if a theological concept requires God's interaction with nature. 

In my opinion, science has not produced contradictory proof of anything that would nullify core theology if true.  Sure, our understanding has shifted over the centuries, but looking closer, it really does not affect core theological issues. If science gets around to disproving any core theological concept, then we can look at it on a case-by-case basis.

Why would it matter whether or not it had, if you exempt it on principle....and on top of that suggest that no comment can be made on it anyway, because supernatural?  

Like I said above, the theological concept might need to be re-evaluated. It can only be solved on a case-by-case basis. 

YEC is a good example. Why hang your hat on something that all indications are that it is not the best explanation for the observations? Time will tell so why fight about it like it is a core theological concept when it really isn't?

No it's not..if I can use the word "supernatural" to rescue it...or simply mention that it -is- core theology....just not yours.  

This is a good example. We can, but why would we use the word "supernatural" to rescue it? In my opinion, after examination of the pertinent theology it is not required that YEC is true.

[Minimalist]

Ok... so why do you say that science has "proven" that a man who has been dead for three days cannot come alive again?

Even the simplest life requires the specific arrangement of a complex sequence in order to carry out the functions for life.  In the case of a being that was once alive, the material is already present and arranged.  It just needs to be made living again.  I would agree, that in Christ's case that some repair was necessary; however is this any more difficult than the arrangement in the first place?    Keep in mind as well, that it was not just natural forces and random chance, that are behind the resurrection of Jesus.  The description attributes an outside and intelligent interaction (God) as the cause.  

So by what distinction do you say that science as proven against the one, and yet accept the other?

Look brain cells die if deprived of oxygen for more than 6 minutes .... FACT .... 

Except in xristards where they have long since succumbed!

[The Grand Nudger]

Because science is always subject to change (and often does). To make a statement like "my theology will change as science proposes new theories" is even worse. It has to be a case by case basis. Is x scientific theory compatible with y theological concept? Perhaps we need to adjust our theological understanding because new facts come to light. My caution is scientific theories. By necessity, they presuppose naturalism and as such may be wrong--especially if a theological concept requires God's interaction with nature. 

So what, honestly Steve,...so what?  OFC science is subject to change..it actually -does- what you suggest but fail to actually do.  That doesn't make your theology any more likely to be an accurate representation of reality.

Like I said above, the theological concept might need to be re-evaluated. It can only be solved on a case-by-case basis. 

Waffles.  There is no case by case basis...you have exempted those things you require...because you need them to be true.  That;s not a case by case basis..that;s a two case basis. Things you don;t give a shit about, and things you do.

This is a good example. We can, but why would we use the word "supernatural" to rescue it? In my opinion, after examination of the pertinent theology it is not required that YEC is true.

Why..because -you- have......... It -is- required that YEC be true, you just belong to a different sect. They can;t use your metrics...and your method won't tell -you- that their core theology is wrong. To come to that conclusion...you did something else.

[SteveII]

To sum this up, I believe that where core theology is not on the line, we can listen to what science thinks is the best explanation and go forward to see where that leads.

Well, congrats on exempting yourself from any form of rational discussion then, because "science is to be respected, but only in those areas where it doesn't conflict with my presupposition," is one of the most profoundly intellectually dishonest things I've ever read.  

I just answered Rhythm:

Because science is always subject to change (and often does). To make a statement like "my theology will change as science proposes new theories" is even worse. It has to be a case by case basis. Is x scientific theory compatible with y theological concept? Perhaps we need to adjust our theological understanding because new facts come to light. My caution is scientific theories. By necessity, they presuppose naturalism and as such may be wrong--especially if a theological concept requires God's interaction with nature. 

In my opinion, science has not produced contradictory proof of anything that would nullify core theology if true.  Sure, our understanding has shifted over the centuries, but looking closer, it really does not affect core theological issues. If science gets around to disproving any core theological concept, then we can look at it on a case-by-case basis.

It really depends on what your core theology is-and it would be your personal core theology, and nobody else's, because the thing about theology is that there are as many different kinds of it as there are theists. The only thing that they really seem to share is that, at their absolute base, core theology really just means "god of the gaps." So long as there's a place to stick the "there's a god," presupposition, it's always amazed me how many central tenets of any given religion end up outside of the "core theology."

No, ontologically speaking, core theological beliefs have nothing at all to do with "god of the gaps". They have to do with specific revelation as to the purpose of the universe, God's place in it, our place in it, the relationship between God and man, and eschatology. 

YEC is a good example. Why hang your hat on something that all indications are that it is not the best explanation for the observations? Time will tell so why fight about it like it is a core theological concept when it really isn't?

Some christians think that the young earth is a component of a strictly literal interpretation of the bible, which is core to the religion in that without it, everything else within is questionable. What metric are you using to determine that they are wrong on this, yet your "core theology" is the really important bits of your religion? So far, you seem happy to just assume that.

I'm sure they do. 

I think Gen 1 was not written to be taken literal. Gen is not a science book. The beginning of Gen is older than the rest and has a different style. It is sufficient to tell bronze age people that the world has an origin and a purpose and monotheism is true (as apposed to other cultures who had polytheistic roots and varied creation stories).

I don't know how Adam and Eve fit in (and when). I believe there was a literal Adam and Eve because Jesus and Paul spoke of a literal Adam. 

The fact that what I call core and what other call core beliefs may be different is just to point out the nature of any complex belief system. If you think I am mis-characterizing common protestant theology, please tell me where.

[The Grand Nudger]

If your theology were subject to change...there's a fair to middling chance that it wouldn't be so ridiculous, today.  Food for thought. Doesn't happen that way, though, does it. God is always smaller, tinier, more petty...the faithful insist that this must be so and that no authority can make comment because they -need- it to be so.

The gods that I -don't- believe in are bigger than the gods that they do.......

/sadface.

[Minimalist]

If theology were subject to change it wouldn't be theology.

[SteveII]

Like I said above, the theological concept might need to be re-evaluated. It can only be solved on a case-by-case basis. 

Waffles.  There is no case by case basis...you have exempted those things you require...because you need them to be true.  That;s not a case by case basis..that;s a two case basis.  Things you don;t give a shit about, and things you do.

You are accusing me of things but won't give examples of where I am being inconsistent. What are "those" things that I require to be true that conflict with science? You point out that there are two categories of possible conflicts--I would not put it that way, but so what? 

This is a good example. We can, but why would we use the word "supernatural" to rescue it? In my opinion, after examination of the pertinent theology it is not required that YEC is true.

Why..because -you- have.........  It -is- required that YEC be true, you just belong to a different sect.  They can;t use your metrics...and your method won't tell -you- that their core theology is wrong.  To come to that conclusion...you did something else.

Why do I care what someone else believes? Their believe in no way affects what the truth is. I am trying to find my own methods of discerning the truth of complex issues.

[The Grand Nudger]

You've given the examples of inconsistency -even as you asked for them-.  I told you I wouldn't humor you by referencing other threads..... because I knew I wouldn't have to.

You -should- care about what other people believe...when your metrics and method cannot establish that they are wrong, despite your believing them to be so. YEC gets a pass, because it;s core theology that YEC'rs need to be true, and also because it's supernatural and so science can;t comment. Argue against yourself....if you like.

[vorlon13]

If theology were subject to change it wouldn't be theology.

That will come as a STARTLING and AMAZING concept to our Mormon friends.

[Esquilax]

I just answered Rhythm:

Because science is always subject to change (and often does).

As we discover new things, yes, the science does change. This is called "learning," and if you find it to be a problem with science, then I literally do not know how to respond to such insipid statements.

To make a statement like "my theology will change as science proposes new theories" is even worse.

So in response, you'd prefer to make the statement, "my theology will not change, no matter what we learn." I'm baffled that you feel this is an improvement.

It has to be a case by case basis. Is x scientific theory compatible with y theological concept? Perhaps we need to adjust our theological understanding because new facts come to light.

But you've already stated that there is no X that will ever prompt you to abandon Y completely, which renders the whole discussion moot. If you won't allow science, which is nothing more than a method of decoding the world based on observations, to sway your outlook, if you're holding theology to be, at its core, inviolable, then what does it matter? You're just paying lip service to learning shit around the periphery of your worldview, while disregarding observations in favor of your own presupposed solipsism at the core.

What matters here isn't what the data would probabilistically lead to, but rather what you want to be true. So why bother holding your theology up in comparison to anything you experience?

My caution is scientific theories. By necessity, they presuppose naturalism and as such may be wrong--especially if a theological concept requires God's interaction with nature. 

First of all, this statement is largely circular: the science doesn't think you're right, but if you're right, then the science is wrong. Pretty big "if" there.

Secondly, science takes methodological naturalism as an axiom because it has to, but that just restricts it methods to those things that can be reliably detected, with sources that can be discovered. If your god was detectable- detectability being the thing you would need to rationally hold belief in god - then that would be within the purview of science. Seems to me like you just want to skip the rational steps and presuppose your god is involved while avoiding any talk of actually detecting that, which... I'd love to know why you think that's a reasonable justification for disregarding science.

No, ontologically speaking, core theological beliefs have nothing at all to do with "god of the gaps". They have to do with specific revelation as to the purpose of the universe, God's place in it, our place in it, the relationship between God and man, and eschatology. 

From everything you've said thus far, I'm feeling pretty correct about putting the god of the gaps right at the center of your core theology. You've already said you're willing to just assume your god is involved in whatever processes science describes, after all: that's the gap you're putting your god into. "My god does that, you just can't detect it." He's all warm and safe from falsifiability, but that's all you're really doing.

I'm sure they do. 

I think Gen 1 was not written to be taken literal. Gen is not a science book. The beginning of Gen is older than the rest and has a different style. It is sufficient to tell bronze age people that the world has an origin and a purpose and monotheism is true (as apposed to other cultures who had polytheistic roots and varied creation stories).

I don't know how Adam and Eve fit in (and when). I believe there was a literal Adam and Eve because Jesus and Paul spoke of a literal Adam. 

The fact that what I call core and what other call core beliefs may be different is just to point out the nature of any complex belief system. If you think I am mis-characterizing common protestant theology, please tell me where.

I'm not asking you what you believe, I'm asking you why you think what you believe deserves to be called core theology, while less common beliefs that differ from your own do not. What is the metric you're using to separate the core theology from the optional theology?

That question reveals the problem: you don't have a metric for that, do you? You have a list of things you think belong in the correct category, and a list of things that don't, but no actual criteria for determining which is which, because it really just boils down to those things you already believe, and those things you don't... am I wrong?