Here's one objection which unbelievers sometimes raise to the Bible: if the Bible was truly inspired, it ought to contain examples of prophetic science. God should inspire some Bible writers to make scientifically prescient observations. That would prove the Bible is divinely inspired. Instead, the Bible doesn't say anything over and above what ancient writers would normally know, or not know, given their prescientific outlook.
i) One problem with this objection is that it diverts attention away from actual evidence for the Bible by demanding a different kind of evidence.
ii) It also overlooks the argument from prophecy. If the argument from prophecy is sound, then that's evidence of something which goes beyond what ancient writers could naturally know.
iii) But let's address the objection head-on. The objection runs afoul of time-travel paradoxes. In one familiar version, a time-traveler goes back into the past. He inadvertently gives people back then a preview of some scientific discovery or technological breakthrough, thereby kickstarting the scientific development of the ancient civilization. However, giving them advance knowledge of modern science changes the future. His action generates a different timeline, which replaces the previous timeline. But in that event, did the future he came from ever exist? An atheist who faults the Bible for lacking prophetic science is implicated in the same retrocausal incoherence.
But skeptics could argue that a scientific prophecy can be conceived of that could only be recognized after human beings made a certain discovery. So that it doesn't adversely affect God's providential plan in between the giving of the scientific prophecy and the recognition of it. God could have revealed an equation or formula or a string of number whose scientific importance would and could only be discovered thousands of years later. Similarly, some Muslims claim there are advanced scientific facts in the Qur'an which could only have been discovered in the past few hundred years. The problem with such scientific prophecies is that they could still be interpreted to be revelations of some advanced extra-terrestrial civilization rather than God. The same could be said of ordinary prophecies. Some advanced civilization or our future selves could have given such prophecies using time travel technology. And so, a determined skeptic need not admit that God exist. I'm convinced that no amount of (merely) inductive discoveries can lead to a rationally coercive belief in God. At least that's how I interpret Van Til.
ReplyDeleteThe "Bible Codes" phenomena (real or not) potentially could provide evidence (not proof) for God. For example, I could imagine some advanced Bible Codes program using a special algorithm to discover that the entire Gospel of John is secretly embedded in the Torah. That's something which could eventually lead to the conversion of the Jewish people as a whole (in fulfillment of Rom. 11). However, that seems like a cheat. It seems to me a more glorious way would be for God to use the ordinary preaching of the Gospel (ideally with signs and wonders) to eventually bring about the salvation of physical Israel as a whole (more or less).
This whole topic reminds me of this SCENE from Stargate: SG-1 episode "Thor's Chariot." Unfortunately, the video only shows the latter part of the scene.
That's a double-edged sword. Some Christians claim the Bible does contain prophetic science. Skeptics immediately try to debunk those interpretations. So they can't have it both ways.
DeleteHow would the Bible make a scientific prediction? It would have to use popular language. But that could be explained away as too vague to be a genuine scientific prediction. A skeptic would complain that we're reading later developments back into the passage, which is not that specific.
Bible codes are a different issue. That's not prophetic science.
Yes, there's some analogy with aliens who kickstart the scientific development of a primitive human (or hominid) culture. That's an old SF theme, viz. 2001: A Space Odyssey.
However, that doesn't generate a retrocausal antinomy. And so it's not analogous to the standpoint of a modern unbeliever, who necessarily takes the actual present as his frame of reference.
Some Christians claim the Bible does contain prophetic science.
DeleteAgreed some do. From anti-intellectual Christians to pro-intellectual ones. I didn't mean to say that there definitely are none in the Bible or that Christians don't claim there are. I was saying that even if there are, they couldn't lead to coercive proof of God's existence. Because mere induction alone can't lead to apodictic knowledge (as Gordon Clark demonstrated and which Cornelius Van Til agreed with), though God can use induction (in conjunction with other things) to bring people to knowledge (as Van Til argued).
I wouldn't be surprised if there are some prophetic science. Or if there are things in the Bible that have scientific implications which could only be confirmed in latter generations. For example, the Bible teaches a beginning of the universe. Only since the 20th century is there strong scientific evidence for a beginning of the universe. Something which is consistent with the Christian Scriptures (and other non-Christian scriptures). Hugh Ross claims that the book of Job predicted the discovery of Dark Matter (cf. Job 38:19). Ross also claims that in various passages in the OT it teaches the expansion of the universe. There are other things that Ross claims the Bible scientifically predicts in advance. Also, there are other claims made by other Christians I'd rather not get into.
"I was saying that even if there are, they couldn't lead to coercive proof of God's existence. Because mere induction alone can't lead to apodictic knowledge (as Gordon Clark demonstrated and which Cornelius Van Til agreed with)."
DeleteYou're confusing inductive science with a scientific prophecy. If the Bible predicted a scientific discovery, the prophecy would not, itself, be inductive.
I believe God regulates the ability to confirm His existence with different degrees depending on God's plan. In the OT there were clear examples of high points and low points when God made His existence evidently clearer or vaguer. Examples of greater clearness are the great miracles like the parting of the sea, the manna from heaven, the miracles through Moses, Elijah and Elisha.
DeleteExamples of low points would be Judges 6:13; Deut. 31:17; 1 Sam. 3:1b; 28:6; Ps. 13:1; 42:3,10; 74:9; Ps. 44:1 compared with verse 23-24; Ps. 77:7-9; 89:49; Isa. 40:27; 63:15; Amos 8:11. Sometimes God's apparent absence or silence was a form of punishment for sin (sins which were themselves ordained and timed by God).
The hiddenness of God was also experienced during the 400 year slavery of the Israelites; during the intertestamental period when for about 400 years there wasn't a prophet in the land; during the Enlightenment (17th century) through the popularization of Darwinism (19th) all the way to Modernism (early 20th).
However, we are now in a time when the scientific evidence for a designer is at an all time high and there are Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians around the world who are gathering in converts through signs and wonders.
If the Bible predicted a scientific discovery, the prophecy would not, itself, be inductive.
DeleteBut it would have to be inductively "confirmed". A determined skeptic would rather deny inductive inferences (even his own experiences as veridical) than to admit that a reasonable conclusion is that an intelligent agent placed such a 1. scientific prophecy or a 2. predicted scientific discovery into a holy book. Add to what you said, "A skeptic would complain that we're reading later developments back into the passage, which is not that specific."
I was just pointing out the limits of induction. However, inductive experience can be used by God to bring people to faith in Him. For example, none of the cosmological arguments are airtight. But, they have some strength to them even if they don't provide certainty. An open minded unbeliever should rightly conclude that maybe there is God. Those arguments are evidence for God even if they aren't proof. But skeptics often want conclusive/compelling/coercive "proof" because they have an aversion to God (e.g. these QUOTES.
Annoyed Pinoy said:
DeleteThe "Bible Codes" phenomena (real or not) potentially could provide evidence (not proof) for God.
1. Well, if Bible codes aren't "real," I'm afraid I don't see how they could "provide evidence...for God."
2. Hm, but couldn't Bible codes fit with what you said earlier - "they could still be interpreted to be revelations of some advanced extra-terrestrial civilization rather than God"? If so, this could undermine the Bible as "evidence...for God."
3. While a particular Bible code may allegedly contain a string that's arranged in a recognizable pattern, is the probability (frequentism) of the pattern occurring by random chance statistically low enough to warrant the sorts of conclusions Bible code proponents wish to infer from it?
But it would have to be inductively "confirmed".
By "it," are you referring to the biblical prophecy itself, its interpretation, and/or the scientific discovery?
A determined skeptic would rather deny inductive inferences (even his own experiences as veridical) than to admit that a reasonable conclusion is that an intelligent agent placed such a 1. scientific prophecy or a 2. predicted scientific discovery into a holy book.
I suppose it depends in part on how "determined" this skeptic is. It may be possible to argue even though an inductive inference isn't conclusive (like a mathematical proof), it may nevertheless be probabilistically plausible.
Of course, if the skeptic is a radical skeptic, then he eviscerates his own position as well.
1. Well, if Bible codes aren't "real," I'm afraid I don't see how they could "provide evidence...for God."
DeleteYeah, I phrased that poorly. By the "real or not" I meant to indicate I wasn't sure whether they were real phenomena or not. Obviously, only if they are real could they serve as evidence (not proof) for God.
2. Hm, but couldn't Bible codes fit with what you said earlier - "they could still be interpreted to be revelations of some advanced extra-terrestrial civilization rather than God"? If so, this could undermine the Bible as "evidence...for God."
Short of the Parousia or God giving a special indication of His existence like in the case of Paul on the road to Damascus, a determined skeptic can always doubt the ordinary evidences God has provided for His existence. That includes the Bible. There's some truth in this quote of Pascal:
Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.
If interested, people can read my blog on God's Hiddenness.
Patrick said...
...is the probability (frequentism) of the pattern occurring by random chance statistically low enough to warrant the sorts of conclusions Bible code proponents wish to infer from it?
I don't know, that's why I'm not dogmatic on the Bible Codes/ELS. However, one can conceive of a situation where an extremely complex pattern is even more deeply embedded in the Torah using ELS. As an analogy, think of the movie Contact with Jodi Foster. There were different levels of coding. At the surface level there was the coding of the prime numbers. Deeper still, there was the coding of video, audio and images. Deeper still, there was the coding of formulas. Deeper still there was the primer. Deeper still, the formulas were to be understood three dimensionally.
By "it," are you referring to the biblical prophecy itself, its interpretation, and/or the scientific discovery?
All of that involves induction. Looking at a page and reading a passage of Scripture involves induction. The prophecy itself might be given as a deductive syllogism. In which case, one might be able to use deduction instead of induction. But it need not be written deductively (since most of the Bible isn't written that way anyway). But even if it were, it would still need to be confirmed inductively since science is mostly inductive, and pure deduction must exclude any form of induction. Science is also sometimes abductive (inference to the best explanation) and abduction is another form of induction. It doesn't aim at certainty as deduction does.
Of course, if the skeptic is a radical skeptic, then he eviscerates his own position as well.
Amen. The thing is there are such skeptics. I encounter them from time to time. Though, of course, they are never completely consistent in their skepticism. They can't be because they're made in God's image.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe primer scene from the movie Contact: http://youtu.be/-SbKE_U4b7U?t=3m6s
DeleteWatching it again, it seems the primer was the last thing discovered, not the second to the last.
Annoyed Pinoy said:
DeleteYeah, I phrased that poorly. By the "real or not" I meant to indicate I wasn't sure whether they were real phenomena or not. Obviously, only if they are real could they serve as evidence (not proof) for God.
Cool, that makes sense. :-)
Short of the Parousia or God giving a special indication of His existence like in the case of Paul on the road to Damascus, a determined skeptic can always doubt the ordinary evidences God has provided for His existence. That includes the Bible. There's some truth in this quote of Pascal:
I agree with you about "determined skeptics." But my point wasn't about skeptics as such. Rather I was asking why Bible codes couldn't be interpreted by some skeptics as "revelations of some advanced extra-terrestrial civilization rather than God."
However, one can conceive of a situation where an extremely complex pattern is even more deeply embedded in the Torah using ELS. As an analogy, think of the movie Contact with Jodi Foster. There were different levels of coding. At the surface level there was the coding of the prime numbers. Deeper still, there was the coding of video, audio and images. Deeper still, there was the coding of formulas. Deeper still there was the primer. Deeper still, the formulas were to be understood three dimensionally.
1. Sure, we can imagine increasingly elaborate and sophisticated scenarios in which Bible codes might occur. We can speculate about all sorts of possibilities.
2. But are the two truly analogous? Is what took place in the movie Contact analogous to what Bible code proponents themselves have already laid out in their literature? For one thing, how are ELS methods akin to methods used to crack the primer in Contact? How is the structure of Bible codes akin to the structure of the primer in Contact? How are the functions of Bible codes meant to be akin to the functions of the primer in Contact? Can we reverse engineer Bible codes like we presumably can the primer in Contact? Do Bible codes possess the sort of technical sophistication and specification and so forth we should expect in something like Contact?
3. And, again, even if the two are analogous, it seems to me Bible codes could be interpreted by many people as "revelations of some advanced extra-terrestrial civilization rather than God," just as Jodie Foster's character in Contact drew the same conclusion about the primer.
All of that involves induction. Looking at a page and reading a passage of Scripture involves induction
Depending in part on the particular passage or page.
The prophecy itself might be given as a deductive syllogism. In which case, one might be able to use deduction instead of induction.
Well, there you go! :-)
But even if it were, it would still need to be confirmed inductively since science is mostly inductive
1. A prophecy about a scientific discovery is different from the scientific discovery itself. But I think what's in view is the prophecy itself, not the scientific discovery.
2. Hm, what makes you think "science is mostly inductive"? Maybe so, maybe not. Whatever the case, I think it would need at least some sort of argumentation to substantiate. For example, can a deductive mathematical theorem be considered "science"? Or what about a scientific theory that's more modest, say, making only locally deductive claims?
3. Aren't you assuming at least a degree of induction from the outset by framing the discussion in terms of "confirmation" in the first place?
4. A Popperian could bring up corroboration.
5. But even given confirmation theory, it's arguable confirmation can be analyzed non-probabilistically (contra Bayesians for example).
Also, confirmation arguably has challenges or limitations (e.g. the ravens paradox).
6. Not to mention the role of intuition in formulating and testing scientific theories.
Science is also sometimes abductive (inference to the best explanation) and abduction is another form of induction. It doesn't aim at certainty as deduction does.
DeleteActually, my understanding is there's some debate over which, if any, is more fundamental, IBE or ordinary induction.
But my point wasn't about skeptics as such. Rather I was asking why Bible codes couldn't be interpreted by some skeptics as "revelations of some advanced extra-terrestrial civilization rather than God."
DeleteI guess I just don't understand your question or point.
Is what took place in the movie Contact analogous to what Bible code proponents themselves have already laid out in their literature?
No, I don't think it is. That's why I used an extreme example when I said, "...some advanced Bible Codes program using a special algorithm..." Maybe I should have said "super-dooper special algorithm." My two points in giving the Contact analogy is that 1. no matter how amazing a code or secret message embedded in Scripture might be a determined skeptics can always reject that evidence; 2. a reasonable skeptic might accept such codes as possible evidence for the existence of God, and so maybe God may use something like that to fufill the prophecy of Romans 11 that predicts the future general salvation of the Jewish people. I don't discount that possibility, but as I said above, that seems like a cheat. I suspect God will do it by [1.] the preaching of the Gospel (i.e. the surface level teaching of Scripture) [2. and, in my continuationist deams/idealism, by the use of signs and wonders]. Note too that it's logically possible for God to have embedded a complex code in the Bible and intend for it to be discovered after the 2nd Coming of Christ. One example might be in order to leave a kind of secret love letter between Christ and His Bride which she had all along but didn't know of until the right time.
3. And, again, even if the two are analogous, it seems to me Bible codes could be interpreted by many people as "revelations of some advanced extra-terrestrial civilization rather than God," just as Jodie Foster's character in Contact drew the same conclusion about the primer.
If I'm understanding what you're saying, then you're just agreeing with me.
1. A prophecy about a scientific discovery is different from the scientific discovery itself. But I think what's in view is the prophecy itself, not the scientific discovery.
There are many permutations we could refer to. 1. A prophecy of a future discovery. 2. A secret message that could only be scientifically understood/decyphered after a certain discovery or 3. after a certain level of scientific advancement has been achieved. 4. Scriptural statements which have scientific implications of which a future generation will seem to have made discoveries that are consistent with it (e.g. discovery of the beginning of the universe in the 20th century). 5. Scriptural statements which could later be seen as advanced knowledge of science which couldn't have been known by the human writers of Scripture. (e.g. Ross' claims about Job's refence to "dark matter"). Notice #4 & #5 are not the same thing. Number 5 is stronger evidence. Number 4 isn't that significant since there are only a few options, either the universe did or didn't have a beginning. The options are (for all intents and purposes) binary. Even an ocillating universe is "eternal" in a sense. Even the hypothetical multiverse generator is either eternal or had a beginning.
Continued next post.
3. Aren't you assuming at least a degree of induction from the outset by framing the discussion in terms of "confirmation" in the first place?
DeleteYes, since the context of the discussion is the question of what would constitute as evidence or proof for a 1. reasonable or 2. determined skeptic.
4. A Popperian could bring up corroboration.
I don't know what aspect of Popper you're referring to. But one of the 5 possibilities I gave above might cover/include that.
5. But even given confirmation theory, it's arguable confirmation can be analyzed non-probabilistically (contra Bayesians for example).
Also, confirmation arguably has challenges or limitations (e.g. the ravens paradox).
Those things are over my head so I can't comment.
6. Not to mention the role of intuition in formulating and testing scientific theories.
Introducing intuition would seem add the subjective into the equation and so become less rigorous. I have no problem appealing to intuition in evangelism, but I avoid it in apologetics.
Annoyed Pinoy said:
DeleteI guess I just don't understand your question or point.
1. That's because you're not taking the time or making the effort to track the flow of the argument.
Rather, you're just responding in the moment. As if each statement I've made has no prior history or background.
You need to discipline your thinking. Your responses are often all over the map.
2. I'm responding to your original contention about the Bible code phenomenon serving as "evidence...for God" using a point you yourself brought up against scientific prophecies. As you put it: "The problem with such scientific prophecies is that they could still be interpreted to be revelations of some advanced extra-terrestrial civilization rather than God."
If you agree - which I take it you do since you say, "If I'm understanding what you're saying, then you're just agreeing with me" - it undermines your original contention.
There are many permutations we could refer to.
You're free to multiply as many "permutations" as you like. But not sure how doing so significantly changes the point. You can elaborate if you wish.
Yes, since the context of the discussion is the question of what would constitute as evidence or proof for a 1. reasonable or 2. determined skeptic.
1. No, you're mistaken. The context of the discussion is Steve's post about scientific prophecies.
Of course, skeptics and evidences play their respective roles within the context. But they're not the context.
2. However, I probably shouldn't have entertained your Bible codes idea. That was a rabbit trail.
3. In any case, my question doesn't hinge on whether we're talking about "what would constitute as evidence or proof for a 1. reasonable or 2. determined skeptic."
I don't know what aspect of Popper you're referring to.
I've already noted what aspect of his I'm referring to: corroboration. Google if you're at a loss.
But one of the 5 possibilities I gave above might cover/include that.
Your "possibilities" in and of themselves don't amount to an argument or counter-argument.
Introducing intuition would seem add the subjective into the equation and so become less rigorous.
Intuition is non-inferential.
For me to continue to contribute to this conversation or to take it to the next level I would have to do as you suggested and do more research. I doubt I can inform myself on the topics you brought up quickly enough to give an informed opinion in a timely fashion. So, I'll just end the discussion here. I've said all I wanted to say or could say (with my current limited knowledge) and both you and Steve have responded & explained where you agree and disagree.
Delete