map_sort_map

I find it interesting that Paul says it this way -- instead of "Prove that what you know is true" or "Attack anything that sounds suspicious". This is remarkable. If you take the verse out of context, it seems to be a reasonably accurate, though incomplete, one sentence summary of modern science. I don't really remember thinking about this verse when I was a Christian, but I would now read it as recommending methodological naturalism. If I had to imagine the interpretation I would have given it then, I'd probably have inserted the Bible as the standard that things are to be judged against, but that is nowhere in the immediate context. Perhaps it's implied?

Christians, how do you interpret that verse? What method do you use to "test all things"? What do you test them against? Can you test the method? Do you feel that "all things" even applies to scripture itself? Is it even possible to test things against the Bible, since no one seems to agree on what any part of it means?

I think it's quite justified by the text and the rest of the NT to apply this principle to spiritual teachings, and I'm sure that's what Paul had in mind. Would it also, though, apply to just any statements in general? For example, "The positions of the planets have some influence over a human's life", "The earth goes around the sun" or "Life on earth is descended from a common ancestor". Although, say, the five points of Calvinism or the so-called "Name it and claim it" doctrine certainly seem appropriate to test against scripture, the other statements are about the natural world. Should they therefore, according to your understanding of the Bible, be tested against the world, or what?

judge

I think this is good advice too.
However how do we apply this to those (few) assumptions underlying MN?

It seems that even the rules of evidence in science are partly empirically derived.

In other words to make sense of all the "facts" we need some fixed standards.

Or, what do we measure our assumptions against?

Just where do we say MN can't reliably tell us about "such and such".
But it does seem that "true believers" can tend to abandon rigorus methodology, when ironically their own assumptions should ensure the most sound methodology of all.

map_sort_map

Well, I'm not an expert on the subject, but if I read Popper correctly, if something is not testable (For example, "I am friends with the Invisible Pink Unicorn") then science, or MN, cannot say anything about the statement. I don't know what Paul would say about that. I think how you apply naturalism also depends a great deal on what your mental model of reality is. But how do you interpret that verse?

judge

Seems to be some friendly advice, incontext maybe even to be used in this kind of situation

But in general I think the broad presuppostions that people came to accept as underlying the bible were important for the rise of science as a "self sustaining enterprise".

To quote the introduction of Science and Creation by Stanley Jaki

"Only once, in the period of 1250-1650, did man's scientific quest muster enough zest to grow into an enterprise with built-in vitality"

"Great cultures, where the scientific enterprise came to a standstill, invariably failed to formulate the notion of physical law, or the law of nature. Theirs was a theology with no belief in a personal, rational, absolutely transcendent Lawgiver, or Creator. Their cosmology reflected a pantheistic and animistic view of nature caught in the treadmill of perennial, inexorable returns. The scientific quest found fertile soil only when this faith in a personal, rational Creator had truly permeated a whole culture, beginning with the centuries of the High Middle Ages. It was that faith which provided, in sufficient measure, confidence in the rationality of the universe, trust in progress, and appreciation of the quantitative method, all indispensable ingredients of the scientific quest."

map_sort_map

This is completely offtopic, but that might have some truth to it. It's probably true in Newton's case, anyway, and a few others. I wonder why the Church didn't do more to encourage science? AFAIK they mostly ignored it for quite a long time. Also, I don't really see what God's social behavior has to do with it. Surely faith a rational, impersonal Creator would inspire as much science as faith in the personal kind. Actually, I'd expect belief in an impersonal (but rational) god to inspire *more* science, since in addition to implying that the universe is predictable, it implies that a) we don't already have a canon of revealed truth and b) we can expect no help from outside. Someday, but not today, I'd like to compare the influence of the Greeks' philosophy on their science, and Islamic philosophy on 13th century Arabic science, Taoist philosophy on Chinese science, etc. with Christian philosophy on 17th century European science. Someone has probably done that, though. Any book recommendations?

So do you think I'm reading too much into this verse? It's certainly good advice, but is there more to it than that?

jonatha

?

Mageth

I think in this case it is "methodological naturalism".

funinspace

I've seen this argument a few times. Looking back at the last 5,000 years of development I see no justification for such a conclusion. I would not blame Xianity on the fall of the Roman empire, but using the same broad stroke, one could just as easily claim Xianity caused the dark ages. Empires grow and collapse, societies vitality flow and ebb within large spans of time. Who looks today towards Greece or Italy for anything? It took from around 3000BC until about 1700-1800BC to just get from a strange cuneiform pictograph language to get to a language with an alphabet. The real kicker for scientific growth was the printing press in the 1470's (+/- 20 years), not monotheism. Just ask Galileo.

As far as the verse goes, yeah I wish a lot more Xians would take it more seriously. I would even say there's lots of good advice within the Bible, but it's just 1 phrase. If you want a good book on history and technology/science, this is one: Bionomics: Economy as Ecosystem. by Michael Rothschild. It doesn't focus on faith much at all, but is a fasinating (in my view) look at the whole picture. Here's a short blurb of a review.

"Bold, original, and highly innovative, Bionomics scorns the constrictive boundaries among disciplines observed by professional scholars. It combines economics, biology, and a historical analysis of capitalism to make a powerful case for free enterprise. Mr. Rothschild insists that the economy should be viewed in ecological terms, rather than the mechanical terms of equilibrium economics. Critical and opinionated, the book will delight some and infuriate others, but its freshness and intellectual chutzpah make it impossible to ignore."

--Jel Mokyr, Professor of Economics and History, Northwestern University

DK