• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bible friendly only: Theories as parables?

Jim

Nets of Wonder
NOTE: What I mean by “Bible friendly” is that you aren’t here to criticize the Bible, or people trusting what it says.

I’m thinking now of theories in the sciences as parables. I’m thinking that when people use theories from the sciences to argue against other people’s beliefs, the problem is not in the theories. The problem is people taking the theories too literally. Actually, I think the problem goes deeper than that, but in this thread I want to discuss that problem and what to do about it.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I don’t know what more to say about the problem. I think that when people use theories from the sciences as reasons for denouncing some religious beliefs, they’re taking those theories too literally, and possibly more literally than most people with science degrees do. One way that I’ve responded to that has been with a discussion about models.

Example of models, metaphors and analogies in the sciences
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I also wanted to say that we could think of science theories as parables, which might sometimes be inspired by God.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Sure that everything comes from God, but over time I've come to realize that, at least in some cases, there isn't a problem with the theory in regards to the Bible, so no reason to look at it as anything less than reality - a reality which ultimately was made by God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

sooda

Veteran Member
Sure that everything comes from God, but over time I've come to realize that, at least in some cases, there isn't a problem with the theory in regards to the Bible, so no reason to look at it as anything less than reality - a reality which ultimately was made by God.

I don't know about that … The Hebrews borrowed from the Egyptians, Sumer, and the Ugarit. The Christians borrowed from the Jews. The Muslims borrowed from Christians and Jews and so on.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't know about that … The Hebrews borrowed from the Egyptians, Sumer, and the Ugarit. The Christians borrowed from the Jews. The Muslims borrowed from Christians and Jews and so on.
Hey, I never stated what theories I agree with. For example, this one, that I've seen you mention multiple times on-site, is one that I disagree with.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Hey, I never stated what theories I agree with. For example, this one, that I've seen you mention multiple times on-site, is one that I disagree with.

There's plenty of hard evidence that its NOT a theory. There are cuneiform tablets in Sumer, Ras Shamra and Dilmun a thousand years before Abraham.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
What distinguished scientific theories is that they are intersubjectively verifiable.

If you wish to think of such theories as intersubjectively verifiable parables you are, of course, free to do so, but it's hard to see how you're doing more than engaging in self-serving semantic game play.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
There's plenty of hard evidence that its NOT a theory. There are cuneiform tablets in Sumer, Ras Shamra and Dilmun a thousand years before Abraham.
Yeah yeah, heard it all, etc.
 

Shelter

Religion and Science
Well, in science labs you will often hear talk about “finding the story in the data.” Data on its own is just data. To come to a useful understanding, you have to look at what story the data is telling you about nature. Sometimes the same data can be made into different “stories”, which (as we find out over time) may be further from or closer to the truth.

In a way, science is a process of explaining nature to humans using better and better metaphors, based on better and better discovery tools.

BUT it depends on what stage you’re talking about. Over time, more and more evidence accumulates in support of or against the stories we come up with. We don’t consider them established theories until they are supported by a mountain of evidence.

If you’re reading a news article about a recent scientific discovery, you have to realize that 1) the journalist may not have understood the research well enough to explain it, and 2) it may be based on just one study, which would need to be considered along with many other studies before we can tell if it gives a useful description of nature. On the other hand, if you’re reading about a well-established theory, the scientific community has found that it’s an excellent metaphor that helps us make correct predictions about nature. There could always be another, even better metaphor that comes along later.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I'm not sure that it makes sense to wonder if someone is taking a scientific theory too literaly.

The very point of scientific theories is that they are objective and do not rely on personal interpretation.

It is for any beliefs to confort to the facts and the theories, not the other way around.

If a belief is vulnerable to science, then that belief is not worth defending - or having - in the first place. It is, in short, fantasy raised unwisely to some role that it can not sustain.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Sorry, I forgot all about this thread! I have thoughts about how to recognize people misusing theories and how to respond to that, which I’ll be discussing in another thread. Here I would just like to discuss, with people who trust what the Bible says, the idea of viewing theories as parables, which might sometimes be inspired by God. A different way of Him speaking to us in parables, through His creation, from the way He does it in the scriptures.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I'm not sure that it makes sense to wonder if someone is taking a scientific theory too literaly.

The very point of scientific theories is that they are objective and do not rely on personal interpretation.

It is for any beliefs to confort to the facts and the theories, not the other way around.

If a belief is vulnerable to science, then that belief is not worth defending - or having - in the first place. It is, in short, fantasy raised unwisely to some role that it can not sustain.
Just now I tried to think of examples of conflicts where people are taking science theories too literally, and I could only think of one, so I might be overgeneralizing again. :D
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Well, in science labs you will often hear talk about “finding the story in the data.” Data on its own is just data. To come to a useful understanding, you have to look at what story the data is telling you about nature. Sometimes the same data can be made into different “stories”, which (as we find out over time) may be further from or closer to the truth.

In a way, science is a process of explaining nature to humans using better and better metaphors, based on better and better discovery tools.

BUT it depends on what stage you’re talking about. Over time, more and more evidence accumulates in support of or against the stories we come up with. We don’t consider them established theories until they are supported by a mountain of evidence.

If you’re reading a news article about a recent scientific discovery, you have to realize that 1) the journalist may not have understood the research well enough to explain it, and 2) it may be based on just one study, which would need to be considered along with many other studies before we can tell if it gives a useful description of nature. On the other hand, if you’re reading about a well-established theory, the scientific community has found that it’s an excellent metaphor that helps us make correct predictions about nature. There could always be another, even better metaphor that comes along later.
Thanks. I love it. I wish I’d said that. That’s an act that’s hard to follow, so I won’t try.
 

Jesuslightoftheworld

The world has nothing to offer us!
NOTE: What I mean by “Bible friendly” is that you aren’t here to criticize the Bible, or people trusting what it says.

I’m thinking now of theories in the sciences as parables. I’m thinking that when people use theories from the sciences to argue against other people’s beliefs, the problem is not in the theories. The problem is people taking the theories too literally. Actually, I think the problem goes deeper than that, but in this thread I want to discuss that problem and what to do about it.

Theories are exactly that theories that cannot be proven. I believe that God has given us enough instruction about His nature and our purpose here; to love God and Jesus and to be loved by Him. I think if you are a Christian than that is all that matters. I think people in general try to answer questions that we can’t even conceive of. And that just leads to confusion. Trust the Bible.
 

Jesuslightoftheworld

The world has nothing to offer us!
Theories are exactly that theories that cannot be proven. I believe that God has given us enough instruction about His nature and our purpose here; to love God and Jesus and to be loved by Him. I think if you are a Christian than that is all that matters. I think people in general try to answer questions that we can’t even conceive of. And that just leads to confusion. Trust the Bible.

God doesn’t need to prove Himself and how arrogant of us to ask Him to.
 

GardenLady

Active Member
That which is called a theory in science is different from that which we call a theory in everyday language. A scientific theory is supported by a body of objective evidence and includes statements which are testable and falsifiable. They are focused on learning about the natural world / physical universe, and hopefully using that knowledge to develop benefits for humanity, animals, plants, or the earth generally.

I see a parable as a story that tells an important moral or spiritual lesson. For example, the parable we call The Good Samaritan tells us that those we may reject for racial or religious reasons (as the Jewish people did the Samaritan people) may in fact be our true neighbors and act for our good, and as such we should view them as our neighbors and love them as our neighbors. This is an important moral and spiritual lesson.

Thus, I see scientific theories and parables having two completely separate functions -- one focused on the physical universe and one focused on the moral and spiritual realm.
 
Top