The idea that different fields carry varying burdens of "proof" seems self-evident. The legal system requires "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"—an unfortunate use of the word "proof," in my opinion. Mathematics requires perfect rigor with respect to the foundational system being used (e.g., ZF(C), Tarski–Grothendieck, constructivist systems, etc.). Physics demands mathematical models that resonate with repeated observations over a protracted period of time (e.g., general relativity), while natural and social scientists rely on Bayesian statistics and probability-based rejections of the null hypothesis (in the form of p-values) as a way to "(dis)prove" various assertions. The list goes on.
But the illusion that mathematics cannot address all inquiries and forms of dispute persists only because of our limited ability to address these kinds of problems. It's an application problem, not a mathematical one. An oracle, for example, who could define and model every relevant variable with perfect accuracy, could, in fact, "prove" anything. In 1 Kings 3:16-28, Solomon uses the asymmetric "bully" game to determine which woman was the child's true mother, and he did this thousands of years before von Neumann invented the mathematical machinery of game theory (1930's). Math wasn't obviously applicable—until it was.
This is a great article. Unfortunately the term "proof" has been abused by both Atheist and Theists in order to try to bolster the rhetorical effectiveness of their arguments. As William Lane Craig has noted: "Certainty is an unrealistic and unattainable ideal" and it seems most Atheist and Theist philosophers agree that our arrival to the truth of our conclusions is going to be as a result of probabilistic reasoning.
I very much also agree with the general principle outlined in the article; just as in a legal trial, we need to take a cumulative approach that takes into account all the available evidence, weighs them appropriately and makes a conclusion based on the relevant data and factors pertaining to the issue at hand. I'd personally be interested in what the author thinks of sophisticated works of Atheist philosophy such as The Miracle of Theism by J.L. Mackie, The Best Argument Against God by Graham Oppy, The Non-Existence of God by Nicholas Everitt, or Logic and Theism by J.H. Sobel that have taken such an evaluative approach and have come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist?
Brent, as you imply, no one can "argue" anyone into the Kingdom. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." John 6:44. However they cannot prevent you from praying for them and living your life as an example of one who is redeemed. So that would be my advice. One they have been enlightened with the Truth, you have done your job.
How would you respond to an enquirer who, upon weighing all the evidence, particularly the science, has concluded that due to the consensus view of the scientific community, the bible cannot be believed? Any rebuttal which appeals to logic or reason, e.g. the cosmological argument, is countered with the ‘consensus view’.
I appreciate the question as well as Jim's reply. However, I would take a slightly different track. I believe the Bible to be inerrant in that the original Scriptures say exactly what God wanted them to say for God's intended purposes. With that view as a foundation, I cannot find a conflict between science and the Bible. In the last two chapters of my book Atheism on Trial, I consider this at great length, looking at the Biblical text from an inerrant (by my definition) perspective. I urge you to give it a read!
Thank you for your reply Mark. I’ve ordered your book. I’ll be interested to read how you define ‘inerrant’ and cannot find a conflict between science and the bible.
I couldn’t find an email address online to contact you, so I hope you don’t mind if I post again on this forum – it will maintain historical context!
After reading your book I’m guessing that you ‘cannot find a conflict between science and the bible’ because you believe in theistic evolution. Or you possibly you believe that ‘the jury is still out’.
As you’d know, the consensus scientific view is that human evolution occurred over millions of years, and in particular, that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago.
In the chapter on evolution you lean towards a ‘historical context’ view of Genesis, which sees the Genesis account as ‘setting out the truth of God and His creation, not in the sense of science and history, but in the sense of story that teaches a competing truth to the stories surrounding the Israelites’ (p. 182). Without expressly saying it, this ‘historical context’ view seems to allow a belief in theistic evolution, in contrast to the most literal interpretation of Genesis. As with your example of Augustine, the historical context view avoids 'being laughed at' by the scientific community.
If you accept theistic evolution, you could argue (for example) that science has revealed a Mitochondrial ‘Eve’ and a Y-chromosomal ‘Adam’ in support of this view. Could these two ancestors be the ones you are referring to when you mention ‘the fall of Adam and Eve’ in chapter 9?
But even if we splice a Mitochondrial ‘Eve’ and a Y-chromosomal ‘Adam’ into the Genesis account, it goes against the consensus scientific view - which says that these two ancestors need not have lived at the same time (as they are not fixed in time), and they were not particular individuals or even the first members of a ‘new species’.
You could then argue that the science is not settled and that further research may bring to light more evidence; either in support of theistic evolution or against it. In this case, you could say that you ‘cannot find a conflict between the scientific method and the bible’, which you mention on p. 165.
Unfortunately however, it is evident today that the scientific method is itself being largely ignored in the scientific community. The modern consensus view tolerates unfalsifiable (pseudoscientific) theories such as the Singularity, cosmological inflation, the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy and Multiverses etc.
I’m sure you would agree that scientists with a naturalistic worldview (the majority of scientists in the Western world) believe in these things because they have an a priori reason to do so. Their blind faith in their creation myth to explain the origin of the Universe would fit right in with the pagan religions of the time of Moses! In this regard I believe that the Genesis story is just as applicable today - in countering today’s culture - as it was in countering the pagan religions of 3,500 years ago!
With respect Sir, it is my contention that any so-called ‘science’ that conflicts with a literal, fully human Adam - created in the image of God from dust on the sixth 24-hour day approximately six thousand years ago - would also conflict with most of the bible.
If Genesis chapter 1 is not to be taken literally, you’d have to say that Genesis chapter 2 could not be taken literally either. Add to that chapter 3, which describes the conversation between one woman and the serpent, and subsequently between Adam and Eve and God.
You’d also have to say Genesis chapter 4 was not literal, as that chapter details the story of Adam and Eve’s children.
Furthermore, you’d be questioning whether the ten commandments were literal, (at least the fourth commandment) because ‘For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.’ (Ex 20:11).
You would also have to say the chrono-genealogies of Adam to Jesus were not literal (Gen, I Kings, I Chron, 2 Chron, Matt, Luke).
You would also have to interpret Jesus’ own words as not literal, when He said; “Haven’t you read.. that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female” (Matt 19:4).
Finally, you would have a hard job understanding the reason Paul gave for the death of Jesus in Romans 5:12-21, as well as His resurrection (1 Cor 15:21-22).
But of course there are theological arguments to counter all of these points.
So I would like to appeal to the authority of the fundamentals of science (that is; real science, not the blind faith, a priori-atheist variety). As you say in chapter 10; ‘The fundamentals of science go hand in hand with God. God wants humanity to pursue science. God gave an instruction to understand nature. Science is a tool God gave humanity to better the world.’
I would like to draw your attention to a particular fundamental science that is completely at odds with the current mainstream dogma.
It is outlined in an essay written in 1972 by a former Professor Emeritus of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of London. It is even more relevant now than it was back then, and I urge you to read it with an open mind. Here is a link to Science at the Crossroads:
It explains the historical context of Einstein’s Relativity and the fundamental problem with the clock paradox.
It is Relativity that lies at the heart of the Creation/Evolution debate because Relativity provides the mathematical basis for the expansion of the Universe, and consequently the Big Bang, and the billions of years, and the whole house of cards that has been built up since.
It is belief in Relativity that allows the Christian of today to throw out belief in a literal Adam.
It is belief in Relativity that goes a long way towards undermining the gospel message.
Sir, in addition to Atheism, we should also put Relativity on trial.
The idea that different fields carry varying burdens of "proof" seems self-evident. The legal system requires "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"—an unfortunate use of the word "proof," in my opinion. Mathematics requires perfect rigor with respect to the foundational system being used (e.g., ZF(C), Tarski–Grothendieck, constructivist systems, etc.). Physics demands mathematical models that resonate with repeated observations over a protracted period of time (e.g., general relativity), while natural and social scientists rely on Bayesian statistics and probability-based rejections of the null hypothesis (in the form of p-values) as a way to "(dis)prove" various assertions. The list goes on.
But the illusion that mathematics cannot address all inquiries and forms of dispute persists only because of our limited ability to address these kinds of problems. It's an application problem, not a mathematical one. An oracle, for example, who could define and model every relevant variable with perfect accuracy, could, in fact, "prove" anything. In 1 Kings 3:16-28, Solomon uses the asymmetric "bully" game to determine which woman was the child's true mother, and he did this thousands of years before von Neumann invented the mathematical machinery of game theory (1930's). Math wasn't obviously applicable—until it was.
This is a great article. Unfortunately the term "proof" has been abused by both Atheist and Theists in order to try to bolster the rhetorical effectiveness of their arguments. As William Lane Craig has noted: "Certainty is an unrealistic and unattainable ideal" and it seems most Atheist and Theist philosophers agree that our arrival to the truth of our conclusions is going to be as a result of probabilistic reasoning.
I very much also agree with the general principle outlined in the article; just as in a legal trial, we need to take a cumulative approach that takes into account all the available evidence, weighs them appropriately and makes a conclusion based on the relevant data and factors pertaining to the issue at hand. I'd personally be interested in what the author thinks of sophisticated works of Atheist philosophy such as The Miracle of Theism by J.L. Mackie, The Best Argument Against God by Graham Oppy, The Non-Existence of God by Nicholas Everitt, or Logic and Theism by J.H. Sobel that have taken such an evaluative approach and have come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist?
Brent, as you imply, no one can "argue" anyone into the Kingdom. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." John 6:44. However they cannot prevent you from praying for them and living your life as an example of one who is redeemed. So that would be my advice. One they have been enlightened with the Truth, you have done your job.
How would you respond to an enquirer who, upon weighing all the evidence, particularly the science, has concluded that due to the consensus view of the scientific community, the bible cannot be believed? Any rebuttal which appeals to logic or reason, e.g. the cosmological argument, is countered with the ‘consensus view’.
I appreciate the question as well as Jim's reply. However, I would take a slightly different track. I believe the Bible to be inerrant in that the original Scriptures say exactly what God wanted them to say for God's intended purposes. With that view as a foundation, I cannot find a conflict between science and the Bible. In the last two chapters of my book Atheism on Trial, I consider this at great length, looking at the Biblical text from an inerrant (by my definition) perspective. I urge you to give it a read!
Thank you for your reply Mark. I’ve ordered your book. I’ll be interested to read how you define ‘inerrant’ and cannot find a conflict between science and the bible.
Don't hesitate to email me directly with any thoughts, questions, or dialogue!
Thanks Mark!
I’ve read your book. Thank you.
Is there a website you can recommend to contact you?
Thanks again.
I couldn’t find an email address online to contact you, so I hope you don’t mind if I post again on this forum – it will maintain historical context!
After reading your book I’m guessing that you ‘cannot find a conflict between science and the bible’ because you believe in theistic evolution. Or you possibly you believe that ‘the jury is still out’.
As you’d know, the consensus scientific view is that human evolution occurred over millions of years, and in particular, that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago.
In the chapter on evolution you lean towards a ‘historical context’ view of Genesis, which sees the Genesis account as ‘setting out the truth of God and His creation, not in the sense of science and history, but in the sense of story that teaches a competing truth to the stories surrounding the Israelites’ (p. 182). Without expressly saying it, this ‘historical context’ view seems to allow a belief in theistic evolution, in contrast to the most literal interpretation of Genesis. As with your example of Augustine, the historical context view avoids 'being laughed at' by the scientific community.
If you accept theistic evolution, you could argue (for example) that science has revealed a Mitochondrial ‘Eve’ and a Y-chromosomal ‘Adam’ in support of this view. Could these two ancestors be the ones you are referring to when you mention ‘the fall of Adam and Eve’ in chapter 9?
But even if we splice a Mitochondrial ‘Eve’ and a Y-chromosomal ‘Adam’ into the Genesis account, it goes against the consensus scientific view - which says that these two ancestors need not have lived at the same time (as they are not fixed in time), and they were not particular individuals or even the first members of a ‘new species’.
You could then argue that the science is not settled and that further research may bring to light more evidence; either in support of theistic evolution or against it. In this case, you could say that you ‘cannot find a conflict between the scientific method and the bible’, which you mention on p. 165.
Unfortunately however, it is evident today that the scientific method is itself being largely ignored in the scientific community. The modern consensus view tolerates unfalsifiable (pseudoscientific) theories such as the Singularity, cosmological inflation, the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy and Multiverses etc.
I’m sure you would agree that scientists with a naturalistic worldview (the majority of scientists in the Western world) believe in these things because they have an a priori reason to do so. Their blind faith in their creation myth to explain the origin of the Universe would fit right in with the pagan religions of the time of Moses! In this regard I believe that the Genesis story is just as applicable today - in countering today’s culture - as it was in countering the pagan religions of 3,500 years ago!
With respect Sir, it is my contention that any so-called ‘science’ that conflicts with a literal, fully human Adam - created in the image of God from dust on the sixth 24-hour day approximately six thousand years ago - would also conflict with most of the bible.
If Genesis chapter 1 is not to be taken literally, you’d have to say that Genesis chapter 2 could not be taken literally either. Add to that chapter 3, which describes the conversation between one woman and the serpent, and subsequently between Adam and Eve and God.
You’d also have to say Genesis chapter 4 was not literal, as that chapter details the story of Adam and Eve’s children.
Furthermore, you’d be questioning whether the ten commandments were literal, (at least the fourth commandment) because ‘For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.’ (Ex 20:11).
You would also have to say the chrono-genealogies of Adam to Jesus were not literal (Gen, I Kings, I Chron, 2 Chron, Matt, Luke).
You would also have to interpret Jesus’ own words as not literal, when He said; “Haven’t you read.. that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female” (Matt 19:4).
Finally, you would have a hard job understanding the reason Paul gave for the death of Jesus in Romans 5:12-21, as well as His resurrection (1 Cor 15:21-22).
But of course there are theological arguments to counter all of these points.
So I would like to appeal to the authority of the fundamentals of science (that is; real science, not the blind faith, a priori-atheist variety). As you say in chapter 10; ‘The fundamentals of science go hand in hand with God. God wants humanity to pursue science. God gave an instruction to understand nature. Science is a tool God gave humanity to better the world.’
I would like to draw your attention to a particular fundamental science that is completely at odds with the current mainstream dogma.
It is outlined in an essay written in 1972 by a former Professor Emeritus of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of London. It is even more relevant now than it was back then, and I urge you to read it with an open mind. Here is a link to Science at the Crossroads:
http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf
It explains the historical context of Einstein’s Relativity and the fundamental problem with the clock paradox.
It is Relativity that lies at the heart of the Creation/Evolution debate because Relativity provides the mathematical basis for the expansion of the Universe, and consequently the Big Bang, and the billions of years, and the whole house of cards that has been built up since.
It is belief in Relativity that allows the Christian of today to throw out belief in a literal Adam.
It is belief in Relativity that goes a long way towards undermining the gospel message.
Sir, in addition to Atheism, we should also put Relativity on trial.