"Even though American atheists might have trouble winning elections, Americans are fairly tolerant of us unbelievers. My many good friends in Texas who are professed Christians do not even try to convert me. This might be taken as evidence that they don't really mind if I spend eternity in Hell, but I prefer to think (and Baptists and Presbyterians have admitted it to me) that they are not all that certain about Hell and Heaven. I have often heard the remark (once from an American priest) that it is not so important what one believes; the important thing is how we treat each other. Of course, I applaud this sentiment, but imagine trying to explain "not important what one believes" to Luther or Calvin or St Paul. Remarks like this show a massive retreat of Christianity from the ground it once occupied, a retreat that can be attributed to no new revelation, but only to a loss of certitude."

-- Stephen Weinberg, atheist, physicist, recipient of the Nobel Prize and US National Medal of Science, etc.

He's right, imho...

Compare the above with this quote from someone who thought that "what one believes" is very important indeed:

Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life....

  ...unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

...Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."

The Jews said to Him, "Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, 'If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.' Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?"

Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God'; and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."

So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

 

From The Singer, by Calvin Miller (quoted in this webpage ) -

 

He [the Singer] watched the human commerce flowing through the rough-hewn gates. Never had he seen so many people hungry for a living song. They jostled shapelessly, a mass of urban sameness. Each hurried after urgent unattended business, yet none had any reason for the press.

 

The Singer sighed.

 

Sometimes a child would follow in the madding throng. Already it appeared the youngster tried to learn the routine, manufactured steps of older men he mimicked in the way.

 

"Hello, Singer," said the voice he knew too well. "Welcome to the quiet of the grove. Does the senseless empty crowd offend you?"

 

"How did you manage to make them cherish all this nothingness?" he asked the World Hater.

 

"I simply make them feel embarrassed to admit that they are incomplete. A man would rather close his eyes than see himself as your Father-Spirit does. I teach them to exalt their emptiness and thus preserve the dignity of man."

 

"They need the dignity of God."

 

"You tell them that. I sell a cheaper product."

"Religion has at one time or another been thought to fill four main roles in human life: explanation, exhortation, consolation and inspiration,” writes Mr Dawkins, enumerating the four targets of his logical firepower. He shows that religion does not provide a satisfactory explanation for anything. Here his arguments are well-rehearsed and finely honed from decades of combating American fundamentalists. This section will appeal to anyone who ever wondered, if God created the universe, who created God? As for exhortation, he argues that in practice, religion is not a legitimate source of morality. If it were, Jews would still be executing those who work on the Sabbath. Where morality actually does come from is less clear. Mr Dawkins suggests the source is a combination of genetic instincts, which evolved because morals allowed humans to benefit more efficiently from co-operation, and a cultural Zeitgeist. For some people consolation and inspiration are genuine benefits of religion, as even Mr Dawkins will allow. But these functions can and should be fulfilled by other means, he says. This is the most problematic part of his thesis. In his case contemplation of the natural world does the job; his final chapter is an ode to the perspective-altering discoveries of modern physics. But only a minority will find as much consolation in quantum physics as in the prospect of reuniting with their dearly departed in heaven."

Interesting... (as is also his idea of how religion can be 'removed' from the world...)

While I certainly would not claim to defend "religion" in general, I am extremely interested in the rationality and viability of belief in Jesus Christ as the Creator, Savior, and Lord God (which Dawkins would probably call 'the religion of Christianity').  So here is my reply.

Belief/trust in Jesus Christ is not primarily about "explanation, exhortation, consolation, or inspiration", although it certainly does provide an excellent basis for each of them.   Instead, the primary concern of a follower of Jesus Christ must be truth.  

We must ask not "what would provide me with the best sermon" but "what is the actual state of affairs in the universe and in my life?"  "What is the truth about my soul? (if I have a soul)"  

Is it true that God exists, that He has created me, that I am responsible to Him for my actions?  Is it true that although I have messed up my life beyond any hope of eternal happiness, that God wrapped Himself in flesh and came to the earth for the express purpose of dying in my place?

Dawkins mention of "explanation" is closest to what I'm saying, though I bet I could summarize what he was referring to in a single sentence - "a long time ago people didn't know what caused lightning and rain, so they invented gods to pray to, but now we know that lightning and rain are caused by physical laws, so we don't need gods anymore... we're grown-up now."  Actually, contra Dawkins, some events are still "explained" better under the theistic hypothesis than the naturalistic hypothesis, like Creation and the Resurrection.  And the theistic/possibility-of-miracles hypothesis doesn't impinge upon real operational science at all.

Dawkins, eloquent and educated though he is, not only comes to the wrong conclusions, but even deeper - he is asking the wrong questions.

Problems with the "Kissing Hank's Ass"  story making the rounds of atheist websites these days (i.e. http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php , but I don't recommend reading it - it's neither edifying or even solid argumentation for atheism - it's full of straw men - its only force is emotive)

1. In the story, there is no empirical justification given by Hank.  The God described in the Bible has given significant empirical evidence, most notably in Jesus' resurrection.  (Acts 17:22-31)

2. The story implies that all warnings of impending doom are ludicrous.  This is obviously not always the case.  A fireman might legitimately shout warnings to a person inside a burning building to get out.  Another example is the case of Harry Truman, an 83-year old man who refused to leave his cabin in the shadow of Mt. St. Helens, even as the volcano began to rumble and issue smoke for the two months before its eruption.  Scientists and officials repeatedly tried to tell him of the danger, but he obstinately ignored them.  He was buried by volcanic ash and mud on May 18, 1980.

3. The story likens the Christian call to repentance and following God is likened to literally "kissing Hank's ass", and Hank is presented as an arrogant, stupid, and sadistic man.  The analogy is grossly wrong.  More accurate analogies would be:
- Finding a treasure hidden in a field, and selling everything I own to buy the field and possess the treasure.
- Or about to drown in a raging storm after my ship sank in the ocean, and suddenly being thrown a rescue rope by a Coast Guard worker.
- Or as a dirt poor orphan begging in the streets, suddenly being adopted as an heir of the King of the land.
- Or having my debt of one billion dollars being paid by a benevolent rich man, and having a credit of one billion dollars placed into my bank account, and then on top of that, being asked if I would like to take a really good job at the man's company.
This link shares a similar view, more eloquently and thoroughly.

Chew on this quote for a minute -

"There is an important struggle going on for the soul of Christianity, which should be of concern to everyone, Christian or not. The debate is not just at the level of arguments over whether, for example, certain Old Testament passages should be interpreted to condemn homosexuality. The deeper struggle is over whether Christianity is to be understood as a closed set of answers that leads to the intensification of these boundaries, or as an invitation to explore questions that help people transcend boundaries. Such a struggle is going on not only within Christianity, but in all the major world religions."

The quote is from Robert Jensen, a self-professed "Christian Atheist" in Texas.   Fascinating to read his whole article, if you get a chance.

I think his quoted words are correct, in a sense, although he comes to the wrong conclusions and uses bad wording to describe the phenomenon.   Here's how I would put it instead:

"There is an important struggle going on for the soul of Christianity, which should be of concern to true Christians even more than anyone else. The debate is not just at the level of arguments over whether, for example, certain Old Testament passages should be interpreted to condemn homosexuality. The deeper struggle is over whether Jesus Christ is to be understood as The Way, The Truth, and The Life, to whom all people across the globe desperately need to turn in repentance and belief, or whether he is to be regarded as merely a good moral teacher and his religion One Path Among Many, whose only taboo is 'intolerance.' Such a struggle is going on not only within Christianity, but also within Islam, Judaism, and to a lesser extent, Hinduism."

Indeed, the major religions are undergoing liberalizing influences.  Christianity has been experiencing it for centuries.  Postmodernism has only exacerbated this trend.  But it was Jesus Himself who divided the entire world into "he who is for Me" versus "he who is against Me," who spoke of "My sheep" versus those who were "not of My sheep", and who said, "Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins."

"Exploration of questions that help people transcend boundaries" is all well and good, unless it causes people to leave the pure Truth given to them by the Creator God, in search of sophistry and philosophy that lets them live their lives whatever way they want - trying to get rid of 'that pesky God' with His 'strict and antiquated rules'.

Exploration of questions is a great thing, but the answers to the questions are most important.  Holding to the wrong answers in this case... will lead to Hell.

Ok, more philosophical/epistemological musings...      Sorry for those of you my esteemed readers who would rather read little tidbits and anecdotes...     But I'll come back to those in a few days, perhaps.

These thoughts were prompted by some discussions from this past week, although they've been percolating for quite a while.  My views on the inspiration/inerrancy of the Scriptures have also been undergoing some modification over the last few months.  I'll have to explain that some time.

For now, enjoy, and although I didn't write it in a very clear way, please feel free to wade in and suggest any of your thoughts, critiques, and suggestions for improvement.

 

============================

 

The topic is "science and the Bible", and the question is how to proceed if they seem to contradict.  (It might be helpful to merge these thoughts with Moreland's "four views" from our readings).  Working on the following assumptions:

1. The Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God to mankind.

2. Observational/nomological science connects us to the real world that God created, so that by performing experiments and observing the results, we (have the potential ability to) view/interact-with a real physical world, not an "illusion" - i.e. our observations "correspond" with a reality that exists outside of any human observers.

3. All of our interpretations of the Bible are fallible and must pass through multiple "layers" of cultural/environmental influences.  Examples of the layers are:
- between the original autographs and the extant manuscripts and codices
- between the extant codices' symbolic semantic Hebrew/Greek message and our own individual understandings (i.e. "Do I understand the language this manuscript is written in?")
- between the Hebrew/Greek and the English, if we don't know Hebrew/Greek (i.e. the issue of "translations")
- the broad-context questions - e.g. "I know this says "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth...", but does the word "days" in context refer to literal 24-hour days, or unspecified periods of time?"

4. All of our interpretations of scientific experiments are fallible and must pass through multiple "layers" of cultural/environmental influences.  Examples of the layers are:
- if I read about an experiment (e.g. Michelson-Morley) in a textbook rather than performing it myself (with direct sensory observation), I have the same difficulties of textual interpretation as above with Scripture:
- "do I understand the language of this scientific report?"
- "am I grasping the meaning of what the author wrote in broad context?"  (e.g. the word "evolution" has many meanings)
- if I perform the experiment myself, am I 'sure' that I am not performing the experiment incorrectly, or that I am not failing to account for all possible confounding factors? (i.e. experimental error, sensor noise, other confounding factors)
- whether another or I perform the experiment, are our assumptions valid?  (e.g. uniformitarian "annual layer" assumptions for varves, ice cores, tree rings, etc)
- whether another or I perform the experiment, is my model valid to the necessary precision? (e.g. relativity and quantum mechanics drastically revised the physical models of the 19th century, allowing greater prediction precision than before)

5. Both our scientific and our Scriptural understandings can be supposed to be "asymptotically convergent", meaning that although they can be "wrong" to various precisions, increasing time and study will bring our beliefs closer to "The Truth".
- e.g. for scientific theories, Einstein's theory of gravity "refined" Newton's, rather than "contradicting" Newton's.  Yet even Einstein's may not be the "exact" way that gravity is described.
- e.g. for scriptural interpretations...

6. It is desirable to hold to a set of beliefs that is as consistent as possible.  If possible, the set of beliefs that I hold should have no contradictions at all, when all qualifiers and caveats are accounted for.

7. It is desirable to hold to a set of beliefs that is as "livable" as possible.  This should "include" my own innate sense of what is morally desirable (while recognizing that my own innate conscience may possibly need revision from time to time).
- For example, if my conscience prompts me to treat other people with love and respect, even if they hold wrong beliefs (1 Peter 3:15), then a system of beliefs (such as Christianity) which shows the propriety and rationality (with respect to "the real world", both physical and spiritual) of such love and respect would be preferred over a system of beliefs which provided no rationale for such love of others (and certainly over a system which, for example, provided a rationale for destroying others so that my own 'fitter' genes would predominate/propagate).
- Yet, my conscience is not the end-all, since it might be corrupted.  For example, if I as a white Southern slave-owner of 150 years ago was confronted with compelling evidence from a belief system (such as Biblical Christianity) which I had strong reason to believe was true, I should be able to modify my innate sense of what was right and proper (e.g. from "The negro ought to know his place" to "The negro is my brother as a human, he has just as much dignity as an imagebearer-of-God as I do, and he needs to hear about God's salvation and kingdom just as much as I also need to hear").

 
Holding to these principles and assumptions, we might try to come up with a statement that we all agree upon...  (though I am not too optimistic about this...   such as:
"We agree that it is possible for scripture to 'trump' science, in the sense that:
- After all available scientific and scriptural evidence has been duly considered, it is possible for me:
- to experience and hold to a belief that my particular interpretation of a Scripture passage is directly contradictory to my particular interpretation of observational-scientific experiments and historical-reconstructions-supported-by-observational-scientific-experimental-evidence, and further:
- to experience "sufficient confidence" in a belief that my Scripture-based-belief indicates that the Scientific-theory is wrong, and further:
- to be "correct", "right", "legitimate," and "epistemically-justified," in my subsequent repudiation of a scientific theory based on an interpretation of Scripture that I am sufficiently confident is the correct interpretation (to the requisite level of asymptotic accuracy)."
In shorter words:

"We agree that sometimes it is proper to disbelieve in a scientific theory because of what Scripture says."

Or:

"It is possible to be so convinced that one understands what the Scriptures are saying/implying in a certain passage, that one believes in that interpretation in spite of the fact that scientific theories and evidence contradict that interpretation... and it is possible to be epistemically justified in so doing."

 

The critique might then arise: how does one know, to start out with, that the scriptures are "correct"/"infallible" in this scientific sense?  If it contradicts the scientific evidence we see around us, why shouldn't we throw it out?

In reply I would ask - "how does one know that ANY repository of truth is "correct" (let's temporarily postpone discussion of "infallible") in a scientific sense?"   And, "if a piece of evidence contradicts my current scientific understanding, do I throw out the "new piece of evidence" as "spurious," or do I revise (possibly drastically) my scientific beliefs to conform to the one new piece of "evidence?"

The basic problem is that theories never make quantum/qualitative jumps to the epistemological status of "scientific fact"... they instead gradually/quantitatively increase in the estimation of the scientific community, and sometimes for reasons other than scientific reasons.   (Cf. Popper, Kuhn, Ruse)

Yet the question of empirical corroboration of scripture-texts is important.  If the Bible consistently claimed things that were demonstrably false today (such as that people rise from the dead all the time, or that the earth is flat and is supported on the back of a giant tortise), we would be wise to reconsider our belief in it.

On the other hand, if the Bible claims things that are historically reasonable (such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead ca. 2000 years ago in Judea) and subsequently provides adequate ("non-circularly-reasoned") grounds for its own inerrancy, then it might conceivably be justifiable to trust its account of historical events which are accessible only in a limited way by modern scientific reconstructions...

An American?  Yes.  I am an American.

But first and dearest, I am a Christian - an adopted son of the Creator God.

As a Christian, I believe that Jesus was right when He said -

"See to it that no one misleads you.
For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many.
You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.

For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes.
But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.

At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another.
Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.
Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold.

But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.
This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come."
Is this morbid of me?  Am I improperly focusing on the "dark" that is in society without properly seeing the "light" in every person?  Ought I to follow the Buddhist path and ignore the evil, unrest, wars, and riots that are happening with increasing frequency around the world?   Shall I believe the liberal/Eastern "peace and safety" myth, as in the following poem, that peace is actually attainable without God's Messiah?

(keep in mind that this poem was written the day after September 11, 2001)

Wage peace with your breath.

Breathe in firemen and rubble, breathe out whole buildings and flocks of red wing blackbirds.

Breathe in terrorists and breathe out sleeping children and freshly mown fields.

Breathe in confusion and breathe out maple trees.

Breathe in the fallen and breathe out lifelong friendships intact.

Wage peace with your listening: hearing sirens, pray loud.

Remember your tools: flower seeds, clothes pins, clean rivers.

Make soup.

Play music, memorize the words for thank you in three languages.

Learn to knit, and make a hat.

Think of chaos as dancing raspberries, imagine grief as the outbreath of beauty
or the gesture of fish.

Swim for the other side.

Wage peace.

Never has the world seemed so fresh and precious:

Have a cup of tea and rejoice.

Act as if armistice has already arrived.
Celebrate today.

- judyth hill

No.   No!   and with much weeping I say... No.
Flowers, tea, and knitting, wonderful as they are, will never bring us peace!
I say this not because I am a pessimistic person, but because I am a realistic person.  I say this because God has pronounced, very clearly, that there will be no peace until Jesus Christ returns to reign on earth forever.

Evil is not an illusion (and should not be treated as if it is such), chaos is not "dancing raspberries".

Rather, evil is real.  Sin is the darkest of abhorrent twistedness, a screaming-in-the-face-of the Beautiful One.

But God...   But God is there, and He is not silent... He has not left us alone...  He has acted...

Evil is temporary.  Our bottled tears will soon be wiped away, and death will be no more.

You who are grieved at the evil in the world, turn to the Loving Creator!

Please don't ignore Him, don't pretend that He doesn't exist - don't pretend you don't need Him.   Accept the forgiveness He offers you in Christ's substitutionary death-for-us!  Please accept it before it is too late.

Turn to Him in wholehearted repentance... in a 180 degree reversal of your past self-worshipping life...  turn to Him in devotion and allegiance - worship Him alone.

Then, and only then, go make some soup.

 

    For every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult,
And cloak rolled in blood, will be for burning, fuel for the fire.
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.
Isaiah 9

 

Will people who never heard about Jesus go to Hell?

This is of course a massive issue, but I think it definitely needs to be thought-through...  At least I've been thinking about it for a while.  Many skeptics raise the question, implying that a God who would send people to Hell (especially if they never heard about Jesus) is unfair and thus not worth believing in, even if He existed.

Even more powerful/galvanizing is the question - are most of my friends currently headed for Hell?  Many of them have heard about Jesus, but they reject the message.  We all tend to breeze through life, getting our daily work or studies done, having fun, enjoying leisure, time with friends, etc.  Ecclesiastes / the "rain that falls upon the just and the unjust."  We tend to assume that life will continue on as it always has.  But it will not...   Once in a while we are rudely reawakened to that fact.  Let us Christians be preoccupied - even, "fixated", "obsessed", with the eternal and with anticipation of Christ's coming - "fixing our hope completely on the grace to be brought to us at the revelation of Jesus Christ!"

What are your thoughts about "those who have never heard?"   I posted some initial reactions of mine (in the comments below) about the article linked above.  Are there any other good articles or books you'd recommend, etc?