Amazing Truths: How Science and the Bible Agree

[David Garner]

One way in which discussion/arguments about spiritual/religious matters are carried out is by using restrictive and often idiosyncratic definition of key words in the discussion and then arguing about whether that word applies to whatever is under discussion.  "Religion" is often used in this way.  Attempts have been made all the way back, at least, to Anselm to make proofs and win arguments by the definitions that we attach to words.  Ultimately it doesn't work.  In the words of Korzybski, "The map is not the territory.  Words are the map, reality is the territory.

Thus we have people arguing over whether religion is man made or can be revealed by God.  Depends on how you have defined "religion."  There is also the well know tendency for some people to claim to not be religious but rather to be spiritual as though spiritual comes from God (or the god within) and religion is boring old pharts attempts to put "God in a box."

All in all, narrowly defining words and then basing arguments on those definitions is a good way to end up talking past each other.  If we are not looking at the same map (an agreed upon vocabulary) how can we discuss the territory?

Agree.  In the realm of logic, this is known simply as "equivocation," and is generally considered fallacious reasoning.

[aletheist]

I think the laws of nature are the same both before and after the fall.

Why?  Genesis 2:5 seems to indicate that there was no rain before the Fall; instead, a mist came up from the land.  In fact, the first description of rain falling is when "the windows of the heavens were opened" to bring about the Flood (7:11-12).

Ah, but Genesis 1:6-7 God creates a dome that separated the waters above from the waters below. In this dome were the "windows" of Genesis 7 that could open and let waters fall down. If creation was completed after six days, those windows for rain were in place from the beginning.

Where does the text make an explicit connection between the dome and the windows?  Even if I grant your point, what laws of nature that still operate today would have governed the behavior of the dome and the windows?  And what do we make of the mist that came up from the land before the Flood, but not afterwards?

[John Mundinger]

The Christian religion is God's saving grace in action, including the proclaimed Word, the Sacraments as God ordained them, and the faith-inspired loving acts of God's people, none of which are human constructs.

Yet, Christians have wrapped all of that up with many human constructs. 

[John Mundinger]

One way in which discussion/arguments about spiritual/religious matters are carried out is by using restrictive and often idiosyncratic definition of key words in the discussion and then arguing about whether that word applies to whatever is under discussion.  "Religion" is often used in this way.  Attempts have been made all the way back, at least, to Anselm to make proofs and win arguments by the definitions that we attach to words.  Ultimately it doesn't work.  In the words of Korzybski, "The map is not the territory.  Words are the map, reality is the territory.

I can agree with that.  But it also points to the fact that it is a lot easier for sinful believers "to make proofs and win arguments" than it is to actually live faithfully.

[mariemeyer]

In his 2/26 blog Matt Becker comments on Rev Dr. George L Murphy's  review of the CTCR report "In Christ All Things Hold Together." To read Matt's entire blog go to  http://matthewlbecker.blogspot.com

Regarding Dr. Murphy Matt writes...

"Dr. Murphy received his Ph.D. in physics from John Hopkins University in 1972. His focus was on Einstein's theory of general relativity. After teaching and conducting research in physics for an apostolic number of years, he matriculated to Wartburg Seminary, where he received his theological education. Ordained in 1983, he has served Lutheran and Episcopal congregations. He has also written numerous articles and books on the interface between science and Christian theology (from a distinctly Lutheran perspective). Since getting to know him (mainly through his wonderful books on science and theology, but also through regular email communication with him), I like to think of him as our North-American version of John Polkinghorne (who earned his Ph.D. in mathematical physics before becoming an ordained Anglican clergyman). George's books and writings on "science and theology" continue to be important resources for me and the students who take my summer-semester course on the Christian doctrine of creation (a course that leads us to engage Christian-Lutheran theological understandings in relation to mainstream scientific theories about nature and other issues in the natural sciences)."

Marie Meyer

[DCharlton]

One way in which discussion/arguments about spiritual/religious matters are carried out is by using restrictive and often idiosyncratic definition of key words in the discussion and then arguing about whether that word applies to whatever is under discussion.  "Religion" is often used in this way.  Attempts have been made all the way back, at least, to Anselm to make proofs and win arguments by the definitions that we attach to words.  Ultimately it doesn't work.  In the words of Korzybski, "The map is not the territory.  Words are the map, reality is the territory.

I can agree with that.  But it also points to the fact that it is a lot easier for sinful believers "to make proofs and win arguments" than it is to actually live faithfully.

Of course.  How could people possibly live faithfully unless they knew what faithfulness was and what is was to which they were to be faithful?  On the other hand, if such knowledge was possible, then the impossibility would be the result of something else, like sin.  (Assuming for the sake of discussion that you and I have knowledge of what sin is.)