Lack of Divine Intervention

Remove all ads!

I agree with what Fel was saying, but I'd like to build off of this comment a little bit. In terms of the study of science, there are only three main categories, with everything else being a subset of the Big Three. Those are biology, chemistry and physics. There are no doubt derivatives of each, but those are the only "true sciences" for lack of a better term. To give some examples, the astronomer is first a physicist. The entomologist is first a biologist, and the geologist in your family is first a chemist.

On the other end of the spectrum we have things like sociology and the like, which are social sciences. Psychology kind of stradles the line between the two. They are certainly more scientific about thier approach than any other social science, but yet not nearly enough to the degree that they are accepted as a subgroup of biology, so generally they are lumped in with the social sciences. Along those same lines are neuroscience, which is even closer to being a subset of biology (with all the psychology majors in your family I won't bore you with a discription of the differences between biology, neuroscience and psychology).

 

@Fel:
But I wasn't trying to say that modern medicine was all based on guesses or anything, I was specifically trying to point out that that extreme is there. Yes, that is an extreme case, but it is also not unique. If we limited knowledge to only those things which can be verified by repeatable experimentation, medicine would take some large hits.
The repeatablity is the issue here. First off, it would not even be moral to intentionally inflict a person with certain conditions, such as cancer or Hepatitis, just to show procedure X results in Y. Secondly, even if we could do so, the exact condition of both the patient and the progression of the condition are by no means guaranteed to be identical to the original, negating any attempt at repeatability. While we may have plenty of canger and AIDS patients to study and form some pretty solid theories and 'knowledge' around, it does not meet the repeatability standard defined in #3.

And yes, I know that psychology is not the most exact of sciences. It is generally called a 'soft-science' specifically because you can't do the same kind of repeatable experimentation in it as you can in physics. Actually, Aldeth, sociology is probably closer to hard science in that respect than psychology. There's nothing wrong with performing the same survey on the same people 100 times to make sure the results are accurate.

@Susipaisti:
I still don't see how that impacts the limitedly infinite nature of God. God said that we had become like Him in that we knew right from wrong, not in all facets, since we aren't immortal.

 

The point wasn't so much the infinite/limitedly infinite issue, but man's ability to comprehend God. It seems to me the idea of God being infinite is relatively new. In the Old Testament he is very personified, and apparently man was thought to be a lot closer to being like God than what is the prevalent idea today. These ideas have changed with time, and will probably change again as needed. Man wants to keep God a few steps ahead at all times - wouldn't feel safe otherwise.

 

I believe the whole thing about God being 'infinite' was based on his power yet as Susapasti has said this has been adapted by Christians to mean other things. 2000 years ago stars were just dots in the sky, 'infinate' was alot less than it was today. The Earth was the centre of the universe and the sun circled the Earth. Back then infinite power basically meant being able to do anything on Earth because that's all that exsisted back then.

Now the whole 'infinite' thing is just another way of saying "The Lord works in mysterious ways" which is used to explain away everything that can't be explained. It's a cop out. Another way of saying "I don't know" without admitting not knowing.

 

How is saying God is infinite a cop-out? The notion of an infinite God certainly didn't stop Einstein from investigating the workings of the universe, and he even found support for the idea in what he learned. When asked if he believed in God, Einstein's response was, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all being."

Religion doesn't have to be an intellectual cop-out, although it certainly can be a handy excuse ifthat's what you're looking for.

 

Hmm, this discussion reminds me of a passage fropm the book I am reading ("The Warrior-Prophet" by R. Scott Bakker):

 

An interesting quote, but not entirely supported by the Bible, if that's who's God you're referring to (that's generally the one people mean when they say God as opposed to god or gods).

@Susipaisti:
Warn me next time you randomly change topics. It confuses people.

 

I initially brought it up on the previous page when there was some discussion on both the infinity and man's comprehension.

I guess this is what happens when I try to keep from posting a novel.