DiscussMormonism.com

Just kicking this off.

My premises are:

1) Logic, and particularly logical argument, can and should be used in a defense of theology.

2) Science has no place in Christian theology because neither God, nor Jesus, nor angels, nor heaven, nor the human soul have a physical existence (since the ascension of Christ).

3) Science does have a place in historical validation (or invalidation) of events. And that speaks only to the event, not the cause.

tojohndillonesq wrote:Just kicking this off.
2) Science has no place in Christian theology because neither God, nor Jesus, nor angels, nor heaven, nor the human soul have a physical existence (since the ascension of Christ).

How do you figure that? Logically, I mean?

tojohndillonesq wrote:Just kicking this off.

My premises are:

1) Logic, and particularly logical argument, can and should be used in a defense of theology.

Agreed (to an extent). Logic can be falible (i.e. it can sometimes lead to false conclusions).

Example:
A little girl gets on an airplane and asks the flight attendent when the plane will get smaller. The little girl's assumption that the plane will get smaller is logically sound based on her knowledge. Whenever she sees planes take off, they shrink.

Logic is only as strong as our knowledge. So although it can and should be used, it shouldn't be the Queen.

2) Science has no place in Christian theology because neither God, nor Jesus, nor angels, nor heaven, nor the human soul have a physical existence (since the ascension of Christ).

LDS theology and cosmogony would strongly disagree with this (as far as I understand it). I also believe there are some (or many[?]) within mainstream Christianity that might disagree with this.

3) Science does have a place in historical validation (or invalidation) of events. And that speaks only to the event, not the cause.

Events such as the Parting of the Red Sea, the Burning Bush, the Resurection of the Lord, the Floating Axe Head, the Talking Ass, the...?

1) Logic, and particularly logical argument, can and should be used in a defense of theology.

I guess...

2) Science has no place in Christian theology because neither God, nor Jesus, nor angels, nor heaven, nor the human soul have a physical existence (since the ascension of Christ).

I agree, God, Jesus, angels, and heaven are all non-existent fictions. And science has nothing to do with them.

3) Science does have a place in historical validation (or invalidation) of events. And that speaks only to the event, not the cause.

Yesterday, an event happened. My stepdaughter cried. I suppose science would be helpless to decipher the cause of that event. It seems to me a good starting hypothesis would be the ice cream truck passed by before I could grab my wallet and get out the door. But in "to John history" all I can say is that the ice cream truck drove by. A lot of dots, with no lines.

tojohndillonesq wrote:Just kicking this off.

My premises are:

1) Logic, and particularly logical argument, can and should be used in a defense of theology.

2) Science has no place in Christian theology because neither God, nor Jesus, nor angels, nor heaven, nor the human soul have a physical existence (since the ascension of Christ).

3) Science does have a place in historical validation (or invalidation) of events. And that speaks only to the event, not the cause.

I'm not sure how logic could even be used in proving or disproving theological claims. The problem is that solid premises are hard to be found in the first place. The position that religion cannot be falsified--therefore the question of God is meaningless (a logical positivist view)--says that we cannot find true premises in the first place because religious claims are ever-changing to explain observations.

John Wisdom writes this parable on the proofs of God: "Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, 'Some gardener must tend this plot.' The other disagrees, 'There is no gardener.' So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. 'But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden for which he loves.' At last the Skeptic despairs, 'But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?'" (John Wisdom, "The Parable of the Invisible Gardener," Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, Blackwell, 1953).

Antony Flew uses this parable as an example of how no matter how much evidence we have against God or His nature, the "believer" will always provide further explinations to fit his own presupposed conclusion (that God exists)--begging the question. Flew calls this "the death by a thousand qualifications" (Antony Flew, R. M. Hare, and Basil Mitchell, "Theology and Falsifacation," New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London: SCM Press, 1955, 96-108).

How could we use logic to if we can't come up with unchangable, solid, verifiable premises to use in our arguements? I believe this is a natural consequence of the nature of God. He is mysterious and abstract--we are unable to come to a consensus on who God is (or what His nature is) in the first place, so we don't know exactly what we're trying to prove. Once a proof one way or another is logically concluded, one party or the other can change his premises by qualifying (providing endless explinations)--and then we don't get anywhere.

Livingston "religious claims are ever-changing to explain observations. "

Can you give an example of what you are talking about. Some religious claim for example which are ever changing and then what observations are they explaining?

marg wrote:Livingston "religious claims are ever-changing to explain observations. "

Can you give an example of what you are talking about. Some religious claim for example which are ever changing and then what observations are they explaining?

The conclusion (you state from Livingston) is false as characterized. While religious claims do change, they are not “ever-changing” in any way comparable to the speed with which investigative science has changed and continues to change well-educated people and well-managed companies.

Faith-based conclusions change much more slowly than fact-based conclusions today. Given our virtually instant communication about new discovery and the capacity for revision, religious claims are the last to change.

I’ll join with you in asking for evidence from Livingston for his statement. (Given the complexity of this forum, I will not likely see his response.)

JAK

marg wrote:Livingston "religious claims are ever-changing to explain observations. "

Can you give an example of what you are talking about. Some religious claim for example which are ever changing and then what observations are they explaining?

There is probably much confusion on what I meant. Perhaps I should have not said “ever changing explanations" but "ever-improving explanations." I actually took this position after studying what Antony Flew* brought up against religious claims--as pertaining to falsification debate. Such debate in particular states that any proofs against the existence of God (attempts to falsify religious claims) would never be accepted by theists because of what he calls "qualifications." For instance, some of you may be familiar with what is called "the argument from evil"--simply that if God is "all-good" and "all-powerful" He cannot logically allow evil to exist--therefore he does not exist. The often is counter-acted by the theists in saying that God permits evil for reasons to protect man's free will, or through the "soul-building theodicy"--that evil must be present to test man, etc. See, "qualifications" (explanations) are made.

Let me state another example: religious claims (Catholic in particular) before the 16th century contained the acceptance of a geocentric (earth-centered) model of the universe in which the sun, moon, planets, and stars moved in perfect circular orbits around the earth--as this was in accordance with the religious claims of the time, there was no problem. In 1514, Nicholas Copernicus anonymously forwarded his new helio-centric (sun-centered) model of the universe, in which the earth and other planets orbited around the sun. Galileo and Kepler improved on this helieo-centric model by saying that other planets had moons revolving around them and that the planets didn't move in circular orbits--but elliptical. We all know what happened to our poor friend Galileo for his observations--he was put on house arrest for the rest of his life for saying that the world was such that was contrary to claims of God's existence and power (at least in the way people viewed Him then). Today, though, claims of God’s nature (having changed since then) are quite in accordance with a model of the universe where the earth moves around the sun in an elliptical orbit, the sun revolves around the center of the galaxy, and said galaxy is flying through space. Another qualification has been made that geo-centricism isn't necessarily required for God's perfect nature or existence.

How about St. Augustine, who--along with many others--made the claim that 5000-6000 BC was the probable date of the creation of the universe, as this was in accordance with the Biblical account in Genesis--which interestingly enough placed the creation of the earth before the rest of the "heavens" (stars, planetary bodies, etc.), and no less placed a time limit of "7 days" on the entire process. Scientific observations, though somewhat questionable, point to no where near 7 days or 6000 years as proper timelines for universe creation and that the universe existed much before the earth or our sun were formed. Does the date of 10,000 BC as when civilization begun preclude the existence of God? Most would say no.....thereby changing their explanations of how God works. Maybe the theist would say that the "7 days" weren't literal days, but they were longer periods described in the analogy of a "day."

Or what about the “big bang”? I actually remember when I was young how it was taboo to believe, as a Christian, in the big bang, because apparently, stating that the universe had a “beginning” would undermine the existence of an eternal God or a universe that He would create (the big bang would say that the universe wasn’t eternal, but was created at a point at time=0). More and more today, many Christians—as well as myself, have no problem explaining that the big bang—if the universe was begun in such a way—no way disqualifies the existence of God. After all, maybe God made the big bang happen. And thus, another qualification is made to explain God in a world of such observations as the expanding universe.

Stephen Hawking writes: “. . . .in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference of cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went around round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the Pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God” (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 120).

What if scientific observations one day find other explanations of the beginning of time or a finite universe? Would people discount the scientific evidence as the evil work of a deceiving devil, or would they make qualifications to explain why God’s universe would behave in such a way?

In conclusion, Antony Flew* (as somewhat of a logical positivist) says that the question “does God exist” (or any other religious claim) is meaningless, because no matter what so-called “proof” or logical reasoning there is to falsify said religious claims, the faithful will still believe--even though to do so, they may have to change their views of the nature of God and His universe. I, on the other hand, don’t believe that just because something isn’t empirically provable or is un-falsifiable makes it meaningless, but I think to argue such claims would be rather meaningless—as no matter what, there will always be disagreements amongst the faithful and their critics.

*It may be noteworthy to state that Flew is no longer an athiest, but a diest.

Livingstone22 wrote: I'm not sure how logic could even be used in proving or disproving theological claims. The problem is that solid premises are hard to be found in the first place. The position that religion cannot be falsified--therefore the question of God is meaningless (a logical positivist view)--says that we cannot find true premises in the first place because religious claims are ever-changing to explain observations.

Ok I think now I see where you are coming from. The theological claims which can not be falsified are the supernatural ones. They are outside the laws of physics, hence they are called supernatural. What mankind knows about the physical world is based at the core upon some physical laws of science which are treated as if universal. The appreciation of the natural world through science uses those laws as a base to build upon, other theories. If any scientific law was found to not be universal it would call into question or change currently accepted theories. But all the theories including the laws, are in some way warranted with evidence be it direct observation, inferences from what is currently observed or mathematically speculated. There is some justification for every scientific theory and law, which can be falsified with better theories or some finding which doesn't support the theories/laws. But the "universal" supernatural claims have no means to critically evalute. What is the justification that one sort of God exists, while another doesn't? Or the justification that one kind of afterlife exists and another doesn't. Because there is no means to evaluate, science, the study of the natural world can not address and evalute supernatural religious claims. And with no means to evaluate, one supernatural claims is no more reliable than another. As scientific theories evolve with better data, intuition, tools and become accepted by the general population and scientific community, religious organizations which make claims which are open to critical evaluation, such as age of the earth, or whether planets go around the sun or vice versa are forced to change their positions/claims so as to not lose support of the educated population.

So looking at your sentence, the reason the question of God's existence is meaningless scientifically is because it is a supernatural one, not because some religious claims change with the times to be in accordance with scientific theories as they evolve. Science addresses the natural world. If a God exists and could be detected in the natural world, it would be a scentific object which could be addressed, but at present it is not.

How could we use logic to if we can't come up with unchangable, solid, verifiable premises to use in our arguements? I believe this is a natural consequence of the nature of God. He is mysterious and abstract--we are unable to come to a consensus on who God is (or what His nature is) in the first place, so we don't know exactly what we're trying to prove. Once a proof one way or another is logically concluded, one party or the other can change his premises by qualifying (providing endless explinations)--and then we don't get anywhere.

Science uses logic. Science is changeable. It may explain phenomenon one way based upon the tools and data it has a a particular time. And in future time, new insights may occur, and/or new tools and better data may become available and hence better fit theories for phenomena may gainpreferance acceptance to older theories. All scientific theories and laws are temporary, though for practical purposes may be used as fact or absolute. But all can be changed should there be warrants to do so.

In contrast, religious claims of the supernatural by religious organization are not open to critical evaluation, and require only faith, no warrants to justify. Hence those sorts of claims only change or evolve if the whim of authority or people choose to change them.