I Understand

A question about understanding

Von

Aug 31, 2023

A series of questions, without comment, as an experiment:

1) When someone says ‘I understand how human reproduction works’, do they mean:

a) That they have a theory as to some basic outline of the normal fashion of human reproduction?

-Example, “You two had better use protection, or she might get pregnant”.

b) That they have a theory that covers every aspect of how human reproduction works?

-Example, “I am prepared to teach a doctorate level course on human reproduction.”

c) That (b) but their theory does not include such causes such as ‘the actions of God’ or ‘Karma’ or ‘luck’?

-Example, “Well, yes, feel free to pray for a baby. Humanly speaking it is impossible for you to get pregnant.”

d) That (b) including such things as ‘the actions of God’ or ‘Karma’ or ‘luck’?

-Example, “I had a stupid couple in my office today. I told them that she was infertile, but they said they were going to pray about it’.

— or is there some alternate meaning that I am missing?

2) When someone says, “We know how probabilities work at the blackjack table”. Do they mean:

a) That they have a theory as to some basic outline of the mathematics and probabilities of blackjack?

-Example, “You should bet high now, the odds are in your favor.”.

b) That they have a theory that covers every aspect of how the mathematics and probability of blackjack?

-Example, “I’m going to go down to Vegas and win a million dollars at blackjack.”

c) That (b) but their theory does not include such causes such as ‘the actions of God’ or ‘Karma’ or ‘luck’?

-Example, “Yeah, I know the odds are against me, but Today’s my lucky day, I can feel it!”

d) That (b) including such things as ‘the actions of God’ or ‘Karma’ or ‘luck’?

-Example, “Joey, take the boys and shoot that guy in some back alley. Ain’t no way he ain’t cheating.”.

— or is there some alternate meaning that I am missing?

3) When scientists say, “We understand how human reproduction works,” and then they say, “So the virgin birth didn’t happen”, is that consistent or inconsistent with the word ‘understand’?

4) When scientists say, “Science has reached such a good understanding of physics, that they have disproved miracles,” is that a rational or irrational use of the word ‘understand’?

Please answer the above questions in the comments BEFORE you read the post below. PLEASE :)

Leave a comment

So, the last two questions may have given the game away, but the underlying question is: Does science search for actual truth? Or just repeatable observations? When it uses the word ‘impossible’, does that include or exclude God? Or the gods? Or Karma? Or luck?

When scientists say they ‘understand’ something, does it mean that they are addressing first causes? Or is all they are doing observing repeatable actions and reporting on their percentages?

No one has any particular questions as to how the science of physics can help us fly rockets and airplanes and the science of statistics can help us lose money in Vegas. But when it comes to such things as the virgin birth, turning water into wine, the opening of the red sea, or the creation of all things in six days… does science have anything to say?

Certainly, a lot of people *think* that science has a lot to say, but are they using a false view of science?

Indeed, how much of what we call science is actually a grand form of speculation based upon theory? When they say, “We know how babies are made,” they do not mean that they have observed even a minuscule fraction of the sex resulting in conception (and the sex that doesn’t) that people have every day. They mean that they have constructed a theory and observed parts of it happening at different times in different locations for a few individuals. And it seems to hold together logically, so there you go… no virgin birth.

In order to make the claim ‘this never happens’, you either have to have knowledge of what happens everywhere (which would make you God); or you are really saying that ‘X happening is not in accord with my understanding of how these things happen’. In order to say ‘we have proved that X cannot happen’… again, you would have to be saying it is not in accord with your theory, how you have observed X happening (or the various observable parts of X) in the past, and your understanding of the various supporting processes.

So if you already believe that only material causes exist, then when it comes to something like the virgin birth, you would have to flounder around when asked the question “Could it have happened” and search for… material causes. This leaves those of us who believe in an all-powerful God, who created the entire universe by His word, rolling on the floor laughing.

Some Quotes and Links and Commentary Thereupon

The acid test for a scientific theory is the quantitative agreement of its conclusions with observed fact. To my knowledge, the only quantitative test of the mutation-selection theory of evolution has been made by L.M. Spetner and myself. (J. Theoret. Biol 7, p. 412, 1964 and ibid 11, p. 336, 1966). Using recent results on the molecular structure of DNA, we have been able to calculate rough estimates for the number of generations required to obtain a favorable mutation. The numbers are so fantastically large that to assume that evolution has occurred within geological times in accordance with the fossil record through random mutation and selection is to assume an event more miraculous than that of a monkey producing all the works of Shakespeare by typing at random on an electric typewriter. By all canons of rational statistical inference, such a hypothesis must be rejected. Since I have no vested interest in the truth of the theory of evolution, I am therefore free to reject it as inconsistent in its present form with the facts of geology. As T. Huxley put it, a true scientist must “sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads.”
Prof. A. M. Hasofer (Professor Hasofer is a leading member of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists.); https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/the-orthodox-jew-and-evolution/

The study that Professor Hasofer is talking about, and his logic, are very interesting subjects, but the issue as it applies to this discussion is that he, too, seems to believe that Science can get at first causes. That science can have something to say about events that happened, if they happened, thousands of years in the past.

We do not reject the Eternity of the Universe because certain passages in Scripture affirm Creation, for it is neither impossible nor difficult to find for them a suitable interpretation. But the Eternity of the Universe has not been proved; a mere argument in favor of a certain theory is not sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a Biblical text.
(Maimonides Guide to the Perplexed 11,25)

Here this Jewish scholar also indicates that a given scientific theory, assuming it had enough proof, would cause a rethinking of the theology of Creation.

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/ladybits/scientific-miracle-theories-marys-virgin-birth/
https://www.sciencealert.com/turns-out-virgin-birth-is-possible
I think it was David Hume who put it slightly vulgarly, this was again about the virgin birth I think. Which is more likely... that the whole natural order is suspended or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?
Christopher Hitchens

I put all three of those into one block, because they all get the doctrine of the virgin birth directly backwards. The first two try to make the virgin birth into a ‘not having had vaginal sex’ birth; as if such a thing could have anything to do with what is written in the Biblical story.

Chritopher Hitchens is more on point, but skips the theology. He seems to think that, if the virgin birth happened, it was some sort of hiccup in the natural order, instead of a direct act by an all powerful God. You can see that because if he had put the words ‘all powerful God ’ into his quote, it would have fallen apart.

The Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the raising of Lazarus, even the Old Testament miracles, all are freely used for religious propaganda, and they are very effective with an audience of unsophisticates and children
Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins certainly doesn’t seem to think that modern science, or at least modern education, has nothing to say about miracles.

"Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun."
-Richard Dawkins.

Given the various different definitions of ‘science’ that we have going around, Richard Dawkins seems to fall down very much on one side. This quote doesn’t fit the ‘repeated testing of hypothesis predicting future results’ definition at all.

"It must be possible to construct life chemically, or in a computer."
-Richard Dawkins, The Guardian Interview.

This is essentially a faith claim, not a science claim. But I will add that the fact that it isn’t currently possible to construct life chemically or on a computer is pretty stark evidence against the theory of evolution.

"We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment."
-Richard Dawkins, 'The Selfish Gene'.

This is a religious claim.

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."
-Richard Dawkins.

This is both a religious claim and a nonsensical one. If God created the world, how does out acknowledging that mean we don’t ‘understand the world’?

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.
Stephen Hawking

This is a rather dramatic faith claim,

I think the next [21st] century will be the century of complexity. We have already discovered the basic laws that govern matter and understand all the normal situations. We don't know how the laws fit together and what happens under extreme conditions. But I expect we will find a complete unified theory sometime this century. There is no limit to the complexity that we can build using those basic laws.
Stephen Hawking

Again, a faith claim.

Von’s Substack

Discussion about this post

Von’s Substack

I Understand

A question about understanding

1) When someone says ‘I understand how human reproduction works’, do they mean:

a) That they have a theory as to some basic outline of the normal fashion of human reproduction?

b) That they have a theory that covers every aspect of how human reproduction works?

c) That (b) but their theory does not include such causes such as ‘the actions of God’ or ‘Karma’ or ‘luck’?

d) That (b) including such things as ‘the actions of God’ or ‘Karma’ or ‘luck’?

2) When someone says, “We know how probabilities work at the blackjack table”. Do they mean:

a) That they have a theory as to some basic outline of the mathematics and probabilities of blackjack?

b) That they have a theory that covers every aspect of how the mathematics and probability of blackjack?

c) That (b) but their theory does not include such causes such as ‘the actions of God’ or ‘Karma’ or ‘luck’?

d) That (b) including such things as ‘the actions of God’ or ‘Karma’ or ‘luck’?

3) When scientists say, “We understand how human reproduction works,” and then they say, “So the virgin birth didn’t happen”, is that consistent or inconsistent with the word ‘understand’?

4) When scientists say, “Science has reached such a good understanding of physics, that they have disproved miracles,” is that a rational or irrational use of the word ‘understand’?

Please answer the above questions in the comments BEFORE you read the post below. PLEASE :)

Some Quotes and Links and Commentary Thereupon

Other Links

Discussion about this post