Being wrong

When reading in A Chalmers book "What is this thing called science?", I came upon this part:
The fortune tellers evation:

So my questions are:
Is this way of viewing the world applicable to theology?
If not, why not?
If yes, what are the answers to the charge made? Could for instance any of the 28 FB be proven false?

there is plenty of evidence for an eternally burning hell in the bible.

we have come so far from the pioneers- which ellen white was also - understanding....they knew to dig deeper then the surface meaning of what was written. they knew that just because God said He did something that did not mean that He had literally done it.

in their deeper studies they came to know a God under the surface of the human language used to write the book.

Teresa,

You have not introduced a connection with this statement to the content of the OP. Would you like to elaborate where you are going with this?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Vaster,

We are asked to believe things in the Bible without physical proof. That is why it is called "faith." Do you think a necessarily unprovable concept would be less necessarily unfalsifiable? In my mind, that which must be counted on faith may be neither provable nor disprovable.

For example, science can never prove the non-existence of something. However, just because the concept of God is unfalsifiable (no way to prove God does not exist), does not mean that one should refuse to believe in God.

In other words, there is no point in evaluating the "Articles of Faith," when indeed the very term indicates the non-scientific basis for accepting them. Faith that is seen is no longer faith (Hebrews 1:1). We do not call them "Fundamental Facts" but rather "Fundamental Beliefs."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

perhaps you missed this? or perhaps you were in a hurry as you read and didnt catch it all.

hmmm, i think a little more thinking about that would reveal what i perceive as the fallacy in that thinking.

if the reformers had accepted the papal doctrines on faith without searching the scriptures there would have been no reformation. if succeeding individuals had not studied further there would have been no christian connexion church from which came some of our pionneers. they had come out of various churches questioning each and every doctrine held by those various bodies and holding onto only those that were strictly bible.

by your reasoning no one would have listened to william miller.
subsequently there would be no seventh day adventist church today that would have fundamental beliefs that could be questioned. our pioneers, from such a rich background of questioning and searching the scriptures for oneself, found the truth. we are told there is more to discover and we are told that heresies would come in and we are told to not blindly follow our leaders however much faith and trust we have in them.

from a higher authority than myself:

So you would reject the example that Chalmers gives in the quote as false? That making claims that fit all possible situations that might concievably happen tells us nothing at all about anything.

The following came to mind:



If I'm understanding your question correctly, Thomas, you're asking if the 28 FB's are unfalsifiable?

Have you read "Mere Christianity"? C. S. Lewis took a crack at making an argument for Christianity. Very interesting book.

One of the FB's asserts that the Bible is true. I think that one could be accepted as unfalsifiable. However, accepting that one as true, as a sort of axiom, the others are falsifiable.

Its really the other way around Tom. I am asking if the 28 are such statements that they make claims which could be shown to be false, even though they would have survived such honest atemtps or have failed to join the list.

I did read Mere Christianity a couple of years ago. I am not sure though whether Lewis is representing the average adventist or even adventism in this book.

Stating that the bible is true is a statement which would be falsified if it was shown that the bible is not true. The question then becomes, can a test be devised which the bible could fail in? And where it would be concluded that if it fail it is false while it would equally be concluded that if it does not fail it would still stand? Further, would such a test be desireable?

Regarding your question about the 28 fundamental beliefs, if they are not unfalsifiable, then they could be shown to be false. Maybe you're asking if they might actually be false?

C. S. Lewis wasn't an Adventist. He was writing about Christianity.

I don't think that the Bible is true is falsifiable. There's so much room for interpretation, that whether an event is true or not could always be disputed, it seems to me.

However, Josh McDowell wrote a book called "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" which is very interesting. The author was a skeptic, and set about to prove that Christianity was false by disproving the resurrection of Christ, and after considering the evidence became convinced that Christ actually had been resurrected. I suppose one would argue this proves the Bible is true, as it would be unlikely for Christ to have actually been resurrected and yet the Bible be false.

No, not asking if they are false, only if they could be so. Refering back to the OP examples.

I know Lewis wasn't an Adventist. Exactly because of this, his solution could be one that many Adventist would refuse to accept.

It is quite possible that Greenies point above is the strongest one and the situation being such that theology is not a science in any sense recognised by Popper. It could also be the case that Popper is wrong?

I'm still not understanding your question. How is it possible that the FB's could not be false?

Regarding Lewis' arguments in "Mere Christianity," I don't recall any arguments an Adventist would have a problem with.

Regarding theology and science, this is why I made the point about Scripture. If you accept the Bible as an authoritative book, you can certainly make an argument for the FB's, and they could be falsifiable on the basis of not agreeing with Scripture. However, the Bible is very open to interpretation, which makes it very different to being able to observe or reproduce experiments.

As in aside, it's interesting that many consider the theory of evolution to be scientific, when the same point applies to it (not observable or reproducible by experiment).

Consider again these three short paragraphs. Is what we say about God similar to "telling the reader that if he has a bet today he might win, which remains true whether he bets or not, and if he does, whether he wins or not"? Or to take a less objectionable example, try: If you wake up this morning, it is Gods will, and if you do not wake up this morning it is also Gods will. If you have cereals for breakfast it is Gods will and if you have porridge for breakfast it is Gods will. If you get in time to work it is Gods will and if you arrive to late it is Gods will. And so on. That is, all possible optioins are covered which only amounts to a theology of "whatever we happened to observe was Gods will" which means that we can tell nothing about what God might want to will for tomorrow since we have not yet observed what happened to occur then. It just amounts to an elaborate way of saying, we dont have any idea about what God might want.. Just as an example out of many that could be made.

Now consider the example, the question is, is it fair to how we relate to our theology or is it not? Does our statements of faith contain information, ie they say that some things are true with the following implication that other things which could have been true are not true, and that these things can be examined? Or does our theology stand free from the entire question?

Regarding Lewis book, he would have defended the professors at LSU for one. Just to make one example.

Regarding God's will, I believe much of what happens, most things in fact, are not God's will.

Regarding the other things you wrote, it seems this is dealing with the issue of falsability. I think our statements of faith say things that are true with the implication that other things which could have been true are not true. For example, from Friday night to Saturday night sunset is the Sabbath. I believe one can make a reasoned argument that this is the case, given the Scripture are true. One could also make a reasoned argument that the Scriptures are true. Where I see a difference between theological arguments and scientific ones are that you don't have a criterion to establish truth or error that's accepted by an entire community, like you do with math or sciences.