Mick

I think you have illustrated my point about biblical literlists quite well.

Tell me.. why would God bother to bring anyone back to life after they had died? How does She pick the 'lucky' candidates for resuscitation.

Pericles, let me repeat that I am grateful to you for pointing out the ambiguities of terms I used in my “nutshell”, perhaps too much carried away by the religion-science symmetry suggested by this formulation.

You are right, the sentence

>>Being mutually irrelevant means that science left "uninterpreted" is irrelevant to... a religious... world view... and vice versa.<<

is not clear, and actually not what I wanted to say, among other things because it violates the “cosmetic” symmetry of my nutshell formulation: The phrase “religious world view” should be replaced by “uninterpreted” religion, because “religious world view”, meaning the world view of a person, who is religious, e.g. a Christian, already encompasses personal interpretations - from very naive to rationally quite sophisticated (including uncertainties) ones - of “raw” religious experiences (William James), scripture narratives, theology, etc., by the very definition of the word “world view”.

This would make the statement more symmetric - “uninterpreted” science vs. “uninterpreted” religion - but I agree, that the terms used need to be defined, explained. Everybody more or less agrees on what (natural) science means, but there are many definitions of religion. For these purposes I prefer Clifford Geertz’s anthropological definition as “an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic form by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towards life”. (The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books 1973/2000, p. 89). Christianity evolved further, and there are other than anthropological aspects to it. So we have theology, which, roughly speaking, is a rationalised, systematised expression of the Christian religion, actually in many versions.

On the other hand, there is no no need for a “rationalised” expression of science, because all science is rational: there are no personal “scientific experiences” in the sense of William James (the sensual experiences can, of course be rationalised, that is what science is more or less all about), there are no “holy books” of science, no rootednes in history, no foundational narratives, etc. (ctd)

(ctd) So perhaps the relation science-theology, would be more symmetric than science-religion, with philosophy the overarching perspective, the meeting ground for their dialogue.

In this sense I would call “uninterpreted” religion its pre-rationalised stage, when one simply “experiences” the presence of the numinous (Rudolf Otto), only in its extreme form referred to as mystical experience, accepts the Scripture on its face value (which is the same for a contemporary reader as it was for a reader centuries ago). You see, I am improvising on the go, and will be grateful to you if again you can point to gaps.

“Uninterpreted” science should be a somewhat easier term to define. It is simply what all scientists (with comparable qualifications) agree upon, irrespective of their world views, irrespective of whether they believe in a God or not. As I tried to explain to Mick, evolution theory is something that should be kept within the realms of “uninterpreted” biology, because it is compatible with a theistic as well as atheistic interpretation.

Of course, interpretations do not always have to be related to religion, belief in God. A classical example is quantum mechanics, where everybody agrees about what it is (expressed in mathematical language), and that it is an experimentally verified scientific theory, but even physicists are “philosophically puzzled” about the uncertainty principle, particle-wave dualism, etc. You have the Copenhagen interpretation and half a dozen of others, each of which have philosophical implications compatible with both belief and unbelief in God.

Actually, I personally prefer to compare (abstract) religion with (pure) mathematics rather than science. For instance, Einstein’s famous aphorism: “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality” could be paralleled by: “As far as religious symbols (and norms) refer to observable reality (and rules that can be enforced) they are not certain; as far as they are certain they do not refer to observable reality (and rules that can be enforced).”

Waterboy,
“Why would God bother to bring anyone back to life after they had died?” A quick reading of John’s gospel, chapter 11, the account of Jesus bringing Lazarus back from the dead, yields these answers: For people to see the glory of God. To give opportunity for people to believe in Jesus. So that Jesus could demonstrate who he was, that is, the source of life itself, and the one in charge of the final resurrection.

“How does She pick the 'lucky' candidates for resuscitation?” I see you chose the word ‘resuscitation’, and this is appropriate for there is an obvious difference between Jesus’ resurrection and Lazarus’ and others’ resuscitations. Lazarus’ coming back to life was temporary. He died again. Yet Jesus was raised never to die again. This is spoken about in 1Corinthians 15, which I’ve already mentioned as a key passage for understanding the New Testament.

Was Lazarus lucky? He might not have seen it like that. He then had to die twice. When speaking of the resurrection on the final day, we are all candidates (John 11:24).

George,
The same key chapter (1Cor 15) also explains how the person, Adam, is important in understanding the NT message. This runs in opposition to the theory of evolution, in which Adam is relegated to a figurative or non existence. This chapter also speaks of ‘death’ being an enemy (v.26), one day to be eliminated. Yet evolution theory always requires death to eliminate the weak, ever since time immemorial, for life to progress. A Christian can try and accommodate the theory of evolution, but it can’t be harmonised with the Bible.

Monod’s or Polkinghorne’s conjectures as awe inspiring? Perhaps to some.

Again, I risk being accused of pitting faith against science. If evolution theory served any practical purpose other than securing atheistic leaning philosophies, I might show it more respect.

You spoke of what “all scientists agree upon” as if that was oceans in abundance. I could list more names than just Dembski and Denton who challenge evolution theory.

Mick

In John's Gospel the 'glory' of God refers very specifically to Jesus 'lifting up on the cross', his crucifixion, which is the ultimate sacrifice God makes, revealing His love for the world.

The Lazarus story is a literary device to effect the transition from the 'ministry of signs' to the 'ministry of glory'. It is not to be taken literally although it probably is based on some early 'Jesus tradtions' as there are obvious connections to the Synoptic Gospels. According to John the raising of Lazarus is the event which causes the political reaction which leads to his trial and crucifixion ie His Glory. The synoptics are unaware of this causal relationship suggesting that it is a literary device in John rather than biographical. There are also linguistic hints that chapters 11 and 12 of John may come from the pen of a redactor rather than from the author of chapters 1 to 10 further strengthening the argument for the literary rather than literal understanding of these chapters.

In Luke the miracles, 'dunameis', refer to Jesus' authority over demons. I, for one, do not share the world-view in which there are demons and ghosts running around everywhere. These stories make perfectly good sense, taken literally, from within such a world-view but not from within my world-view. Once upon a time people believed in demons and told stories about demons and spirits. They were interpreting their world in concepts and language appropriate to their understandings. I do not believe in demons but I still appreciate that these stories make a significance point and that is what matters rather than the world view which formed them. I can even talk about demons, using the word metaphorically.

Believe it or not Mick, faith is possible without taking the Bible literally. Have you seen this site which talks about different faith 'zones'. http://www.spiritedexchanges.org.nz/store/doc/Issue%2036.pdf

George

Reading through your old posts I noticed you made the claim that humans are the only beings endowed with consciousness. I find this a most extraordinary claim. Have you drawn this 'knowledge' from science or theology?

Have you ever worked with a dog or a horse? Have you ever observed the social behaviour of a herd of cattle? Have you ever played in the water with a dolphin? They HAVE consciousness. . . . and intelligence. . . . whatever your scientists or theologians say.