tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post1973434563908711066..comments2024-01-04T11:40:48.827-06:00Comments on Dr Michael G Strauss: Reconciling Biblical Interpretation and Scientific InquiryMichael G Strausshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-52019377605342434082017-11-20T18:03:22.494-06:002017-11-20T18:03:22.494-06:00My understanding is that the community states that...My understanding is that the community states that vast empty space is not empty but rather replete with particles of every type and "gender" constantly zipping in and out existence by QM rules and understanding. Maybe the now proposed early hyper expansion at the beginning means there was an early headstart of greatly excessive real particles or the positron type...something had to energize the super expansion. Once this head start was in place it would likely not phase out.Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219283160015859565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-5317579922054394072017-11-09T22:01:44.007-06:002017-11-09T22:01:44.007-06:00It seems the universe has a principal that organiz...It seems the universe has a principal that organizes the convergence of elementary particles and the associated forces that exhibit statistically described but uncertain behaviors such that the human brain, consciousness, rational thought, a central nervous system are manifest. Is this the interface between science writ large and the realm of religious faith writ large in the bible.Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219283160015859565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-88293511522916485682017-11-07T23:19:15.883-06:002017-11-07T23:19:15.883-06:00Science’s general goal is to determine the truth a...Science’s general goal is to determine the truth about physical reality. Bible’s general goal is to provide revelation about God, values and morals. They both provide a basis other than personal preference for determining what to believe and do. If one respects the principal or conclusion from either than they are not free to believe whatever they personal prefer. Because the general goals are different for much of their claims there is no significant overlap. A physical description of reality provided by science cannot fundamentally determine what is valuable. This is the “Is–ought problem” problem that Hume described (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem). So fundamentally Science cannot provide an ultimate source for values.<br /><br />There are some claims of the Bible such as historical claims that overlap with scientific theories. These situations provide an opportunity to check some of the claims of the Bible. Also, once something is determined valuable, then science can be used to determine what morals promote or discourage something of value. So even for non-historical claims there can be some overlap between the claims of science and the Bible. steve hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05477306356710771921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-36952493272429573282017-11-06T06:18:11.893-06:002017-11-06T06:18:11.893-06:00I think I would agree with you. That is another r...I think I would agree with you. That is another reasonable parallel. There might be some scientists who would disagree, saying either that science only describes nature and isn't converging on some truth, or others saying we may some day be able to explain the inexplicable. But my philosophy of science would probably agree with the parallel you present.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-85789858320648052012017-11-05T20:12:17.353-06:002017-11-05T20:12:17.353-06:00Mike Would you agree to some extent that one paral...Mike Would you agree to some extent that one parallel between science and the bible would be at the core lies inexplicable truth that in each case presents evidences that in the respective fields of inquiry are so universally accepted by the adherents as to be certain; namely quantum mechanics on the one and the Trinity on the other. These are it seems at the heart of each, fully understood by no one, yet evidenced to all careful adherents.Keithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16219283160015859565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-90094683174409135592017-11-05T14:45:43.250-06:002017-11-05T14:45:43.250-06:00I think you are exactly right Paul. It took a cou...I think you are exactly right Paul. It took a couple hundred years for the church to totally embrace a heliocentric solar system. Hopefully it won't take quite that long for the church to accept the overwhelming evidence for the age of the universe, particularly since it fits in so well with the biblical record.Michael G Strausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580842374977938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1580378912972065231.post-82806581830453301532017-11-02T21:10:04.677-05:002017-11-02T21:10:04.677-05:00Mike, it seems to me that the old earth vs. young ...Mike, it seems to me that the old earth vs. young earth debate is similar to the geocentric vs. heliocentric debate. The latter was resolved by means of overwhelming scientific evidence showing that the heliocentric view is correct. There is also overwhelming scientific evidence that the old earth view is correct, so why do you suppose that young-earth creationists are so intractable in their view? Do you think they'll ever admit that they are wrong? - Paul CarterPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01463315795752337868noreply@blogger.com