Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 643 of 708 (769069)
09-16-2015 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 642 by Pressie
09-16-2015 7:16 AM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
Pressie writes:
That's not any scientific method at all. I think that Hugh Ross was not telling the truth to you. The scientific method starts with observation. Then why?
Hugh Ross' explanation of the scientific method is non-standard, but it's not "wrong". The two steps that he adds (1. Correctly identify the frame of Reference; 2. Determine the initial conditions) are normally included as part of doing an experiment and making observations.
The scientific method can be thought of as a circular (or spiral) endeavor, with four major parts. It can start at any point in the circle/spiral; with observation, with making a hypothesis, with determining implications of a hypothesis, or with doing an experiment.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 642 by Pressie, posted 09-16-2015 7:16 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 644 by Percy, posted 09-16-2015 11:18 AM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 647 of 708 (769076)
09-16-2015 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 644 by Percy
09-16-2015 11:18 AM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
Percy writes:
While I of course can't be certain without access to the Biblical Paradoxes lecture series, from what I know about Hugh Ross it seems pretty likely that where says "frame of reference" he means Biblical versus non-Biblical. And that where he says "initial conditions" he means a 6000-year old Earth versus a 13.8 billion year old universe.
--Percy
Hugh tries to show people that they can apply the scientific method to the study of Scripture. In interpreting Gen 1, it is important to note the "frame of reference" and the "initial conditions" of each step in the creation process. E.g. the frame of reference for Gen 1:2 ff is the earth; these are descriptions of what would have been seen by an earth-based observer, not by a heavenly observer.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 644 by Percy, posted 09-16-2015 11:18 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 648 by Percy, posted 09-16-2015 2:09 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 650 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2015 3:24 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 653 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2015 10:38 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 659 of 708 (770441)
10-05-2015 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 653 by NoNukes
10-04-2015 10:38 PM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
NoNukes writes:
So Hugh is describing the creation of the universe from a 'viewpoint' or 'perspective' (because surely, "frame of reference" is a horrible misnomer) that no living being actually occupied? Why would that be a sensible thing to record?
It is perhaps understandable that a human being on earth at the time might have mistaken the time of the atmosphere turning transparent as the day the sun and moon were created, but in actuality, nobody could have seen any such thing. Instead man learned of (or made up) the story in Genesis well after all of the events in Genesis 1 and 2 were completed.
Now given that there was nobody at reference point X and that the story in Genesis does not claim to be an eye witness account, for what purpose was the giving a bogus and incorrect account of creation. Was it really too much to expect early humans to understand the sun and moon being behind some clouds?
I have to admit that in the past when you talked about 'frames of reference', I had assumed that there was some general relativity time/space explanation that munged up the order of events as perceived. But now I learn that we were pretending that some human on earth saw creation, something entirely inconsistent with the story in Genesis itself? Makes no sense to me.
Hugh is a scientist. He has a tendency to re-express theological concepts in scientific language. Sometimes this is helpful (especially for others with scientific training), but at other times it is a bit confusing (especially for those with theological training).
What Hugh refers to as "frame of reference" is what theologians call "authorial perspective". See, for example, Henry Virkler (Hermeneutics: Principles and Practices of Biblical Interpretation, Baker, 1981, pp. 84-85):
Henry Virkler writes:
Third, what was the perspective of the author? The authors sometimes write as if looking through the eyes of God (as spokesmen for God), particularly in moral matters, but in narrative sections they frequently describe things the way they appear from a human perspective (as reporters speaking phenomenologically). ... Distinguishing the author's intention to be understood as a direct spokesman for God from his intention to speak as a human reporter describing an event phenomenologically is important for an accurate understanding of his meaning.
Virkler uses the example of the Flood (Gen. 6-9) to illustrate the importance of this principle. If the account is meant to be understood noumenologically (from God's perspective), statements such as "all flesh" and "every high hill" imply a global flood. But if it is meant to be understood phenomenologically (from the perspective of a human observer), these could refer to "all flesh" and "every high hill" visible to the human observer; this would be consistent with a regional flood as well as with a global flood.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 653 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2015 10:38 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 660 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2015 2:39 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 664 by NoNukes, posted 10-06-2015 1:54 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 661 of 708 (770471)
10-06-2015 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 660 by PaulK
10-06-2015 2:39 AM


Re: Who needs a stinken Scientific Method?? ;-}
PaulK writes:
I note that apart from explaining Ross's use of the term you still don't offer any support for the claim that it is "proper" - despite NoNukes objections. Nor do you even really explain how it is such an important part of the scientific method to deserve Ross's treatment of it.
I mentioned this above. Hugh explicitly breaks out factors that are normally included implicitly in taking and interpreting data. His formulation is non-standard, but not "wrong".
PaulK writes:
Of course the proper frame of reference for interpreting both of the Creation stories and the Flood is that they are Middle Eastern myths. That's rather more important than speculations about "authorial perspective. Understanding the nature of the text, and the context in which it was written really is important. Too bad that Ross neglects that aspect.
I agree that all of these things are important.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 660 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2015 2:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 662 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2015 11:34 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024