Page 11
This book is about Genesis and how far scientific discoveries can help
us to understand it. May people have only the vaguest ideas about what science is and about what it can and
cannot tell us.
Page 14
The physicist described it in the only way it could be described within
the bounds of the language, concepts and quantities recognized in physics. For
him to have said more would have been to become ‘unscientific’, in the sense of
going beyond what a physicist could say purely as a physicist. Physics can
measure and talk about flashes of light; it knows nothing of Morse code and
SOS. Such things belong to a different area of human experience.
Page 14-15
Scientists are concerned with the physical world of matter and energy.
They limit themselves to what can be counted, weighed and measured. As far as
possible they try to express their findings in terms of mathematical equations.
In other words, science is concerned with HOW the physical world works – its
mechanism. Truly scientific questions
can always be expressed as ‘HOW?’ questions.
B y itself science can never
answer questions of meaning – the ‘WHY?’ questions.
Page 15
Many of the problems people have regarding science and the Bible result
from the failure, or refusal, to understand the limitations of science.
Page 16-17
The relative prestige still given to scientific truth supports two
widely help assumptions.
The first is that, in areas of human experience that are not open to
scientific study, especially morality and religion, truth is either purely
relative (‘if it makes you happy that’s fine, but don’t force your view on me’)
or non-existent.
Secondly, anyone or anything that seems to question, or disagree with,
current scientific ideas is regarded with suspicion or discounted as wrong.
Since the Bible seems at odds with modern scientific ideas in some places,
especially the early chapters of Genesis, it is ignored or rejected as being
out of date.
If we can see the limitations of science, we can see that these
assumptions are wrong and therefore harmful. The methods and terms of reference
of science prevent it from investigating questions of value and meaning, the
questions with which morality and religion claim to deal. But this does not mean that questions about value
and meaning are not worth asking. Nor
does it follow that there are no moral or religious truths. What it does
show is that in these areas truth has to
be reached by other means.
Page 22-23
The God of the Bible is a personal, rational and faithful Creator.
Therefore his creation can be expected to be orderly and rational. Passages such as Genesis 1 and 8:22 support
this conclusion. It was on this basis that the early scientists developed the
concept of natural laws and began to
look for them.
According to Genesis 1:26-27 human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. This gave
the early scientists confidence to believe that their minds were finite reflections of God’s mind and that they would
therefore be able to understand his creation and his natural laws. They did
have grounds for relying on human reason and logic.
The command of Genesis 1:28 to
rule over the earth, and of Genesis 2:15 to take care of the garden of
Eden, gave a religious motivation for
scientific study of nature. It was seen as a way of carrying out these
commands. Indeed, it was seen by some as a way of co-operating with God to
repair some of the damage done to nature by the disobedience of Adam and Eve.
Of course, only a minority of scientists today understand or accept
this Christian framework for what they are doing. That is one reason why there
is considerable debate amongst philosophers of science about the nature and
basis of scientific truth. The fact is that originally the scientific
enterprise found its purpose and meaning outside of itself, in Christian
theology. Today, with that purpose and meaning largely neglected, it is not
possible to find any other widely acceptable basis for science.
Page 23-25
1) Science cannot explain everything
2) Science explores God’s truth
When Christianity is attached in the name of science, it is usually
being attacked on grounds that are not purely scientific. Christians have nothing to fear from facing up to the established
findings of science, because they are facts about God’s creations.
3) God the Creator is till necessary
The most that a scientist can claim for a theory about the origin of
the universe, for example, is that it explains how God, if he exists, brought
he universe into being – what mechanism he used. It certainly does not explain
away the need for the God of the Bible.
Page 26-27
When there is an apparent clash between science and the Bible, at least
three possible conclusions could be drawn:
1) The Bible might be right and the scientists wrong
Scientific theories do come and go, and occasionally there are radical
changes in scientific views.
2) The scientists might be right and the Bible wrong
3) The scientists might be right and our interpretation of the Bible
might be wrong.
Just as scientist need humility,
so do Christians! If the scientists show us that it is mistaken, then we should
be grateful to them for helping us to take a step nearer to a true
understanding of God’s Word.
Page 31 (The definition of
science)
Science is the attempt to carry out by observation and experiment a
relatively objective study of the material world aiming at rational,
materialistic explanations of what goes on in that world.
Page 35
Good theories do relate to the realities of the material world. On the
other hand, it warns us no to tie our understanding of the Bible too closely to
any one theory, because theories are
only representations of reality and will come and go as science advances.
Page 37
Scientists would rather work
with a theory that they know is somewhat defective than have no theory at all.
It is this reason, and not just stubbornness or obscurantism, that makes
biologists cautious about throwing over the theory of evolution even though there are discrepancies and loose
ends in it. At the moment, they are not convinced that there is anything better
with which to replace it.
Page 38
A scientific law does not
say that this is the way things have to
happen, but simply that this is the way things have been seen to happen under certain circumstances in the past.
This is why scientific laws, like
theories, are always open to revision in the light of new observations and
fresh understanding of the world. It is also why the laws of nature cannot be
said to rule out miracles; but that is another story.
Page 40
Just as scientific theories are always open to revision or replacement
in the light of new data, so Christian
doctrines must be open to revision in the light of fresh understanding of
the Bible.
In fact, to make a reasonably adequate attempt to describe God as he
has revealed himself to us in the Bible, we have to use both the model of
oneness and the model of three persons.
The use of such apparent incompatible models is known in the science as
well. The classic case is in the description of the behaviour of the electron.
In some situations it is best described by the model of a particle, a minuscule
billiard ball. In other it behaves like a wave, like a ripple in the water. The
theory of the electron has to incorporate both models to do justice to all that
is known about it. There is no logical contradiction involved because there are
no situations when both models can be applied at the same time and give
contradictory predictions. The doctrine of the Trinity has been constructed
carefully by Christian theologians so that it does not lead to
self-contradictory ‘predictions’ or statements about God and God’s activity in
the world.
Page 42-43
There are two misconceptions:
1) The first is that faith has
no place in science.
In fact, faith is the fundamental to science. Scientists believe
without absolute proof (that is, they have faith) that the world is ordered in
a rational way and that this order is stable. Moreover, they believe without
absolute proof (that is, they have faith) that the human mind is rational and
can discover and understand that order correctly.
2) The second misconception is
to think that the act of faith is irrational.
Life as a Christian begins by putting one’s faith in Christ as the
savior through whom we are brought back into a right relationship with our
Creator. It is certainly a step beyond what can be proved with no shadow of
doubt. However, most Christians would claim that this is a reasonable step.
There is plenty of evidence in the Bible and in the experience of Christians
down the ages that Jesus is who he claimed to be, and that the commitment of one’s
life to him leads to the experience of God which is promised in the Bible. In
other words, Christian faith is a
reasoning and reasonable trust in Christ, based on a good deal of historical
and experimental evidence, which is available to those who wish to investigate
it.
Page 43
How scientific and Christian view of the world relate to each other. The simple way of putting this is to say
that they are complementary views of reality. We need both of them in order
to complete our understanding of reality. We need answers to both the ‘How?’
and the ‘Why?’ questions. These answers are neither contradictory nor mutually
exclusive. They complement one another. However, this does not mean that they
can exist in complete isolation from each other. Sometimes the answers given to
the ‘How?’ questions will have implications for the ‘Why?’ questions, and vice
versa.
Page 44
A picture that is sometimes used to help illustrate how they do this is
that of the architect’s plans for a building. The architect will draw up plans
of the different levels – the ground floor, the first floor, and so on if there
are others. There will be a front elevation, side elevations and a back
elevation. Taken individually, these drawings may not seem to be related to
each other but, to a person who knows what they are, they all fit together and
make sense, giving an impression of the whole structure.
It is worth noting that in each of the different drawings there are
indications of a fuller picture. The ground-floor plan will indicate that there
is a staircase and a lift-shaft-indications of at least one more floor level.
The same feature may look quite different in different drawings, such as a door
marked on a floor-plan and then seen in an elevation. So, for example,
Christians point out that there are features of the physical world which
suggest that religions questions need to be asked in order to get a fuller
picture of reality.
This illustration needs some modification. The Christian view of
reality is not just one architect’s drawing on par with others. It is more like
the artist’s impression of the finished building, which helps us to fit the
other drawings together properly and make better sense of them. It is the
overarching (comprehensive or all-embracing) view. That view is founded on the
Bible.
Page 49
To say that the Bible is
inspired by God is to say that all this thought, effort and activity was guided
by God. This is not to say that God in some way violated the normal thought
processes or personalities of the writers. Nor does it mean that the Bible must
contain errors put there by the human authors. God, knowing each person’s
mind and personality inside out, could choose as writers those whom he knew
would be able to understand what he wanted to convey and could pass it on
without it becoming distorted.
Page 49-50
The Bible, then, is a book that is both
truly divine and truly human. It is its humanness that has to be taken into
account in the task of interpretation; being written by real people it is
rooted in particular historical and cultural situations, and is expressed in
languages and thought-forms that are not our own.
Page 50-57
Rules of interpreting the Bible
1) Compare translations
2) Use normal rules of language
and literature: When language is to be taken literally and when it is to be
taken figuratively
3) Harmonize rather than oppose:
We do not expect the Bible to contradict itself.
4) Look for the original meaning
4a) The form of literature
4b) Scientific and biblical language : The Bible is
not written in scientific language (carefully defined and precise) but on the
whole, it is written in the popular language of the common people of the time.
It is not very precise, it is the language of appearance (describing things as
they appear to be the ordinary observer) and it is full of cultural idioms.
5) Look for original intention
Page 60
·
Christians who believe that the Bible is free from error cannot claim that the same applies to
their interpretations of the Bible.
·
The claim that the Bible is free from error must
include a proper understanding of the
types of literature and language used in the Bible, and of the original
intention of the authors.
·
If, as Christians, we are not scrupulously careful in our interpretation of the
Bible and humble in our
interpretation of the Bible and humble in the presentation of what we think it
means, we will bring the Bible into disrepute by creating unreal errors in it.
If we insist, as some medieval scholars did, that Genesis 1:16 must be taken
literalistically (ignoring the kind of language used) as a source of
astronomical information (ignoring the true purpose of the passage), then we
have no defence when the astronomers turn round and say that they have proved
that it contains two scientific errors about the size and nature of the moon.
Page 62-63
The Bible is true, but it does not contain all the truth about
everything. God has given us minds and abilities to search for truth outside of
the Bible. When we find it, it too it God’s truth. We are then right to use it
to help us understand the Bible more clearly – whether it be the results of
language study, archaeology, history or even science. The fact is that we never
can, or do, interpret the Bible in isolation. We always bring to the task what
knowledge we have. We therefore have the responsibility to bring to it the best
available knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment