Theology answers theological questions (evolution, creation, doctrine, church, experience)

[angellous_evangellous]

Science tells us what constitues an orange. Some say, no, theologically it is an apple. That's what creationists are doing. They are theologically saying that an orange is an apple. If you base your entire theology upon the false assumption that the scientific orange does not exist, you are not using faith but rather are imposing theology upon science (eg, using theological reasoning to answer scientific questions), and if we allow theology to answer scientific questions, then science is allowed to answer theological questions. If science can prove the scientific question of the existence of the orange, it negates the theological assumption that it is an apple. In this case, the theologians are insisting that the orange is scientifically an apple, that it really is an apple, not that it is somehow an apple naturally and an orange theologically (which is possible - science determines the natural substance of things, theology determines the divinity of things). If the theology is based upon the nature of the apple (which truly is an orange), then those who are convinced that the apple is really an orange have denied the faith.

Science can answer scientific questions. Theology can answer theological questions. If we make a theological question scientific, then science can answer the theological question and thus establish religious doctine. This is not faith.

I want to be perfectly clear here. Faith comes from God, not science. For some creationists, their entire theology would fall apart if they weree convinced that evolution is true. That is, sin entered the world through a literal Adam, there was no death before him, so evolution is not true. Also, some think that their theology of Scripture depends upon literal creation: if evolution is true, then the Bible is not the Word of God, and my entire experience with God is a lie.

In these cases, the Christians who believe this must ignore all scientific proof that evolution is true. The proof is null, and the Christian must insist that literal creationism is true or deny the faith.

Such an attitude is an unhealthy beating against the air.----

What do ya'll think about this? I think that theology and doctrine should be formulated in such a way that does not rely upon science. When science can verify a particular belief or give it creedance, it should be viewed as a nice bonus, but not a requirement.

Here's another example. Christian Scientists think that they can heal people with their mind. Since it dabbles in science, science can negate it.

Theology should seek to answer theological questions that science cannot touch. Once we have a theology that answers theological questions only, we have found a faith that is untouchable by science and we can use science for what it is useful for: helping humans get along in the natural world.

[No*s]

I always say it simpler: "The Church (theologians) answer questions about theology, and scientists about science. We'll all be happy if we respect each other's field" .

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks No*s. I was wondering if this thread would receive any hits at all.

[No*s]

Welcome .

You might get some traffic on this one, but I have my doubts.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

I'd say you have encapsulated the problem. There can be no argument, no discussion of science for some when it appears to contradict the literal "word of God". It is sad that the faith appears weakest when insistence is made for theology.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by pah

I'd say you have encapsulated the problem. There can be no argument, no discussion of science for some when it appears to contradict the literal "word of God". It is sad that the faith appears weakest when insistence is made for theology.

Pah, I cannot say if you are argeeing or not.

I am saying that science is a study of the natural world. Theology is the study of the divine. The divine is not natural, so it cannot be tested. Therefore, when science attempts to answer questions concerning the divine, it has no tests and can prove nothing. Theology, on the other had, is able to answer (or at least try) theological questions. When it attempts to answer scientific questions, science can negate the theology and therefore be a source of religious teaching. Therefore, when one formulates theology, one should not attempt to answer scientific questions as science will be able to confirm or negate the theology. This is where faith looks weak - when folks try to insist something scientific with theology. The questions are fundamentally different.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Pah, I cannot say if you are argeeing or not.

Oh I agree!!! And you would have gotten frubals for this one but that I just gave you some on another post.

[robtex]

AE at this point I would have to ask if God gave us the universe didn't he give us science too and if we percieve much or reality through science why would he create a field that makes his appearance seem unlikely at best?

I mean he had the perfect tool to expose himself to his children with and instead he went with non-evidencable blind faith. Why?

[angellous_evangellous]

He gave us science so that we can get along in the world. We perceive reality through science, but not ultimate reality. If God is separate from nature, as Jews and Christians confess, then nothing in science or philosophy can lead us to Him.

However, it is wrong to say that there is no evidence for God and that He leaves humanity blind. We cannot get to Him by science or philosophy, He must reveal Himself. We confess, as I say, that God is in a different, untestable realm. We need Him to tell us about His character, and we confess that we have a record of His revelation.

God has to tell us some things. It is not unreasonable to conclude that we can't figure out everything. We are limited because we are humans. Even the best science and the most brilliant philosophers cannot answer ultimate questions because the divine is untestable. We confess that we have a record of this revelation: the OT and NT. We can bring our reason to these texts and approach them honestly, or we can bring false presuppositions from external philosophies (that cannot answer their own questions) and misinterpret the text. We can search the text for conistentcy and formulate a constant theology that addresses the Creator and is not depended upon science.

The revelation of God compliments human reason, but human reason cannot reach God alone.