quasi-radical theology

[johncomic]

Since I was raised Fundamentalist Baptist, I think about God and The Bible a lot. Yeah, even still.

Anyhoo, lately I got thinkin about the account of creation in Genesis, which tells us, among other things, that plants were created before there was a sun. Genesis also suggests that originally there was no rain, and that Noah's Flood was the first time it ever rained. (Don't quote me on that one, I've based this on a couple of verses in chapters two and seven. But the plants-sun thing is unequivocably there.)

We all know that plants couldn't possibly survive without sunlight. We also know that it had to rain, as long as there was water on Earth. The reason we know these things is because we thoroughly understand the natural processes underlying them. So we know that the account in Genesis can't possibly be literally true.

But it occurs to me that what this actually means is that we understand the natural processes [natural law, physical law] and we know that they were the same all along, back to the beginning of time. Trouble is, we don't know this: we believe it.

The constancy of natural law is one of the axioms of science, and it's easy to see why. If natural law can fluctuate inexplicably, science becomes impossible. An explanation of how things work now, says nothing about how they used to work or how they will work in the future. There is no enduring truth in scientific discovery if “physical constants” aren't.

So, here are two [by no means the only two] starting points for a position of knowledge:

- The Bible is the literal inspired inerrant Word of God.

- Natural laws are constant throughout space and time.

For either of those statements, you can find people who believe them. In both cases, some people will be able to provide “evidence” to support the statement. But neither of them can be conclusively proven beyond doubt. In that sense, each of them is an axiom - an article of faith. And an entire belief system can be derived from either one.

So, in a way, saying that “Genesis can't possibly be true” is actually saying that “Genesis conflicts with my personal belief system”. The issue isn't science versus religion, it's a clash between two differing “theologies”.

Comments

[ginsu.livejournal.com]

For either of those statements, you can find people who believe them. In both cases, some people will be able to provide “evidence” to support the statement. But neither of them can be conclusively proven beyond doubt. In that sense, each of them is an axiom - an article of faith. And an entire belief system can be derived from either one.

That is true as far as it goes. However, the second belief system is constantly tested, quantified, and confirmed; predictions are constantly made by way of it, and applications of it are constantly in use.

The first belief system, however, rejects the concept of tests, quantification, evidence, predictions, or applications, and replaces all of those verifications with emotion-driven faith. It is conspicuously short of change or progress of any kind as a result.

Consider that we are using a fantastically complex system of protocols, signals, technologies, electrical flows, mathematics, etc. just to have this conversation -- a gigantic sequence of tests, all passed, and predictions, all of which came true, or else you couldn't read this at all.

This amounts to a de facto proof that indeed, natural laws don't seem to be changing -- if any of them did, the entire infrastructure and civilization we have built assuming they won't change would completely fail. We would all die in very short order if, for instance, neurons did not continue to electrochemically fire in the brain in the way we know they do.

However, it does seem generally understood that these laws don't go back more than fourteen billion years or so.

saying that “Genesis can't possibly be true” is actually saying that “Genesis conflicts with my personal belief system"

I would just say that such a vague tale, so apparently chock-full of metaphor, could be interpreted in an infinite number of ways and hence cannot confirm or conflict with any other sort of information.

[johncomic.livejournal.com]

This amounts to a de facto proof that indeed, natural laws don't seem to be changing

Don't “seem to be” -- during the period that we have been measuring them, which in most cases is a few centuries or less. This isn't proof, it's evidence in support.

Consider the possibility that natural law behaves like a strange attractor: looping around in the same circle over and over ad nauseam -- or at least appearing to, when in fact each iteration is infinitesimally different -- and then at one critical point wham suddenly the loop has jumped over into something completely different. Without an understanding of the formulae beneath the strange attractor, there's no way to predict or explain that jump, yet it happens regardless. The “people living inside the first loop” could understandably feel that the looping would never change, but they'd be wrong. Eventually.

if any of them did, the entire infrastructure and civilization we have built assuming they won't change would completely fail. We would all die in very short order if, for instance, neurons did not continue to electrochemically fire in the brain in the way we know they do.

True. But there's a difference between saying “that is what would happen in that case” and “that couldn't possibly happen”. The certitude is what I'm saying is axiomatic.

[johncomic.livejournal.com]

Ooo, I hear little clicks -- I think one of my angels is wearing tapshoes!

[ginsu.livejournal.com]

Don't “seem to be” -- during the period that we have been measuring them, which in most cases is a few centuries or less. This isn't proof, it's evidence in support.

This is why I said "de facto." However, the evidence goes back billions of years, not a few centuries.

We can visually track the path galaxies have taken; we can literally see what was happening in space billions of years ago because the light from back then is only reaching us now. Those galaxies do not move unexpectedly -- for instance, dance the Charleston -- they fly as if propelled by some unimaginable initial explosion, and collide as if driven by gravitic attraction when they are close enough to each other. What we see happening those billions of years ago confirms natural law as we understand it.

Or, if you want something literally more down to Earth, you can consider the vast pile of evidence we have here going back some four and a half billion years, from ancient rock formations to bacteria to dinosaurs to mammals... needless to say, it spans much more than a few centuries. Dinosaurs did not fly off the planet and into space; gravity worked then as it does now. Bacteria did not procreate by magic, three billion years ago; they did so using a genetic method that is shared by all life today.

You can also consider that natural law on this planet has been constant not just over time, but over space. The Milky Way has flown through trillions of miles since the Earth was formed and it hasn't mattered.

The certitude is what I'm saying is axiomatic.

Sure. Science is by design never perfectly certain (which many people find uncomfortable) but rather is meant as a series of successive approximations by which we get closer to "truth" over time. This is quite different from the fixed, inerrant word of God.

Still, I can't help but notice how much more progress happens via science than via religious systems of belief, which seem to generate nothing but social change.

[johncomic.livejournal.com]

Science is by design never perfectly certain (which many people find uncomfortable) but rather is meant as a series of successive approximations by which we get closer to "truth" over time. This is quite different from the fixed, inerrant word of God.

Still, I can't help but notice how much more progress happens via science than via religious systems of belief, which seem to generate nothing but social change.

Would you believe me if I said I agreed?

I readily admit, in the realm of the physical world as we perceive it, science has a lot more cards it can lay on the table than any religion has. I'm not really saying that I think any and all belief systems are created equal -- more like, every position ultimately is a belief system, because you have to start with at least one unprovable axiom. (I'm sure some semantic smartass out there has even taken down Cogito, ergo sum.)

[ginsu.livejournal.com]

every position ultimately is a belief system, because you have to start with at least one unprovable axiom

Sure. Uncertainty is built into every belief system. It's just a question of whether that uncertainty will be admitted and acted upon, or denied and swept under the rug.

I actually find science more comforting for this reason. If scientists find that a natural law is actually bullshit, if that can be objectively demonstrated, the law is obviously not a law, and will have to be modified or scratched out entirely. This is what happened with parity, in fact. And this open, editable methodology ensures science will become more accurate over time, not remain the same or get even less accurate.

[johncomic.livejournal.com]

The reason that we are able to “prove” that those rock formations or lightrays from galaxies are billions of years old, is by using methods that are based on the presumption that the laws of nature have remained constant over time and space. To use such methods to prove that the laws of nature have remained constant is circular reasoning?

[johncomic.livejournal.com]

BTW, you are one of the best, most solid apologists for science I know. Keep up the good work, sir!

[ginsu.livejournal.com]

I grant that it is possible natural laws have been mysteriously modified over time. But I wouldn't bet on it.

I think Mr. Occam had a point on this subject; when in doubt, you don't multiply the odds that you are wrong by introducing a lot of imaginary, unsupported possibilities. Doctors think "horse" when they hear hoofbeats, not "zebra" or "Monty Python member banging two coconuts together."

If your point is just "we can never be absolutely sure," then we are agreed about that.

That's what science says, too, and that's what fundamental religions usually deny. So your point seems to support science at the expense of religion.

[johncomic.livejournal.com]

Still, I think it would be intriguing if there actually was something to the whole “strange attractor of natural law” idea... like, natural law does vary, but there's a kind of “science beneath science” that explains how it varies. So our current pocket of apparent constancy is a special case, kinda like how Newtonian physics is a special case of Einsteinian physics at very low speeds... what we now know as natural law would be a kind of “Newtonian natural law” as a subset of “Einsteinian natural meta-law”...

I dunno, I think that'd be kinda cool. I wonder if anyone has seriously looked into such an idea.

[johncomic.livejournal.com]

your point seems to support science at the expense of religion

When I get chewing over The Bible, that's merely one of the thorny issues I get bogged down in....