Also, related to my recent post about naturalism, check out this article...

Excerpt:   Brother Consolmagno, who works in a Vatican observatory in Arizona and as curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy,...described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a “kind of paganism” because it harked back to the days of “nature gods” who were responsible for natural events.

Again, the controversy is whether the God of the Bible is a deistic, "hands-off" God, or if He ever actually gets physically involved in His universe...

 

 

Taken from some philosophical musings at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/what.html...  I thought these were very interesting.

A Few Ethical Vectors for Christians:

1. The God of Truth is NOT afraid of our questions.
2. Our God is God of the whole person: will, emotions, body, even our intellect.
3. God is seriously committed to truth--whatever the cost...as His children, so should we be.
4. Taking a person's questions seriously is an act of respect and love, even when they don't really take them seriously.
5. Distortion, misrepresentation, or deception through omission are unethical.
6. When we don't know the answer, we must say 'I do not know'...
7. If a sincere question (as a felt need) comes our way, we should attempt to meet that need through answers, resources, or encouragement to patience.
8. We are not allowed to be contentious or to argue for argument's sake.
9. We should be changing the shape of eternity, one conversation at a time.
10. Sometimes the best answer is silence.
11. Prov. 18:13: "He who answers before listening -- that is his folly and his shame."
12. "Slander" includes misrepresentation.
13. Chronic ignorance can become irresponsibility, and chronic irresponsibly can become a moral failure.
14. It is not a sin to have unanswered questions and agonizing doubts--you can raise more questions in 5 minutes than you can answer in 50 years!
15. It is generally dishonest to reject a belief which you have N+1 arguments for, on the basis of only N arguments against (all argument weights being equal)...it is also somewhat foolish.
16. Unanswered questions CAN be a source of emotional pain.
17. This is NOT A GAME we're in.

I'm not sure quite how to begin this post...  so I'll just start writing, below.      (BTW, the continuation of the resurrection thread is still in the works - hopefully coming later this week).

 

In your own estimation (dear esteemed reader), who are some of the most prominent/heroic Christian leaders of the 20th century, and why?  Who stands out in your mind as very noteworthy, and why?

Off the top of my head come five people for my "Top Tier" - Gresham Machen, Henry Morris, C.S.Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, and Alvin Plantinga.  I'll explain why in just a moment.  Second tier candidates for me include John Piper, Billy Graham, John MacArthur, James Dobson, Mother Theresa, Al Mohler, Karl Barth, Carl Henry, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

By the way, I'm aware that God is the only One who truly deserves glory... and that whatever faithful deeds these men and women have done are only due to His enablement.  Yet I think it is helpful to clarify "who are our heros" (in a Hebrews 11 way) and to learn about their lives.

Each of the five men that I will now mention is impressive in my mind for taking a strong stand in believing God in an extremely anti-supernaturalistic environment (i.e. far more hostile than the environment we find today).  They are like "Daniel" types - standing courageously and innovatively for God in a hostile atmosphere.

 

- Gresham Machen

At the turn of the century the "higher criticism" was esconced almost wherever educated Christians were found, and with it a thoroughgoing skepticism toward all miraculous elements of the Bible.  This was, perhaps, the pinnacle of naturalistic thought, culminating the 17th and 18th centuries of rationalism (Descartes, Hume, Kant) and the 19th century (Darwin, Schweitzer, Nietzsche).  In the midst of this environment, Gresham Machen, influenced by B.B.Warfield, published a treatise defending the virgin birth of Christ.  He also wrote influential books such as "Christianity and Liberalism."  He went on to found Westminster Theological Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and his impact continues to be felt.
- Henry Morris

Henry Morris became an outspoken proponent of young-earth creationism in the 1960s, writing "The Genesis Flood" and founding the Institute for Creation Research.  This was very much an "against-the-tide" stand, as very few scientists of that time period were willing to be known for espousing creationism (furthermore, science was even more highly esteemed in that day than it is today, with scientists (think NASA, moon-launch, Cold-War, and "patriotism") occupying basically a "priestly" position in society).  His work (and the work of others before him like A.E.Wilder-Smith and George McCready Price, and the work of others after him like Carl Wieland and Ken Ham) launched a revival of young-earth creationism - a willingness to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and search for scientific evidences for that model.
- C. S. Lewis

Famous for his stories, Clive was an agnostic who converted to Christianity at around 33 years of age.  In the many influences on his life, friends such as J.R.R.Tolkien and authors such as G.K.Chesterton and George MacDonald pointed out to him both the sensibleness and the beauty of Jesus Christ and the life of discipleship.  Eventually he agreed and became a passionate (though cool and witty in person) defender of Biblical truth.  His fiction like the "Space Trilogy" and "Narnia" were imaginative arguments for God and Christianity.  I tend to think of them as "the Fourier Transform of Christianity", and I can explain that further if anyone wants.  With two of his works in particular, "Miracles" and "Mere Christianity", he sought to clear away much of the liberal mush/ambiguation surrounding Jesus Christ and present Him as the very real, very challenging person that He was (and is).  Lewis fought hard rhetorically against the prevalent anti-supernaturalistic bias, striving to bring it to the surface (where it began to look feeble and ridiculous) whenever he found it.
- Francis Schaeffer

Schaeffer had many influences on his life (as we all do), such as Cornelius Van Til and (to a lesser extent) Carl F.H. Henry.  As an eighteen-year-old and a self-proclaimed agnostic, he decided to read through the Bible and decide about God.  He became a pastor in Pennsylvania, then several years later he and his wife moved to Switzerland.  But around 48 years of age he experienced significant doubts in his faith.  He spent the next year or two in excruciating study and thought, after which his faith was restored.  He and his wife founded L'Abri (meaning "The Shelter"), a camp to which hundreds of young people over the years have visited to study and discuss the deepest issues of life (i.e. God).  L'Abri is unusual in that all visiting students spend part of each day in physical work in the community.  Schaeffer wrote "A Christian Manifesto", challenging Christians to make a difference in society, and a number of other books, such as "How shall we then live", an analysis of Western philosophy and art.  He also wrote a trilogy, "The God Who Is There", "Escape From Reason", and "He Is There And He Is Not Silent", whose thesis was powerfully that God was and is real.
Schaeffer, although not the originator of many of his teachings, was very foresighted.  He also connected many strands of thought together in broad teaching.  In his constant interactions with collegiate students, he deeply saw the direction that global philosophy was moving: Postmodernism (although that name was coined later).  He engaged the fissioning modernist and postmodernist philosophies deeply and epistemologically, drawing from the classical thinkers and from his own experience.
- Alvin Plantinga

At one point in my college experience, I happened to ask a particular Christian philosophy professor the following question - "If you would recommend any one book as a good overview to philosophy, which book would that be?"  His answer was somewhat unusual, but I am now very glad of it.  He recommended reading "Warranted Christian Belief", by Alvin Plantinga.  He told me that although it was a tough read, it explained the direction of much contemporary Christian philosophy, and would provide a good introduction to philosophical terms and techniques (he was right).
The April 8, 1966 Time Magazine cover asked the question - "Is God Dead?" ...due to the philosophical consensus of the day.  At the time, philosophical questions about God asked not whether the Biblical picture of God was true, but whether the word "God" even meant anything at all.  Plantinga, influenced by the reformed tradition under Henry Jellema, led a philosophical revolution, including the founding of the Society of Christian Philosophers and the journal Faith and Philosophy.  He propounded several key arguments, including the idea that belief in God could be "properly basic" in philosophical terms, just like my belief in my memories, in the existence of other minds, and sense perception.  He also expanded C.S.Lewis' critique of evolutionary naturalism that suggests that randomly-evolved brains have no reason to be considered reliable, especially when it comes to religious and epistemological issues.   Finally, he wrote an article called "Advice to Christian Philosophers", in which he challenged Christian philosophers to take their faith seriously, and allow it to color all aspects of their lives, including their professional research.

 
I suspect that I may modify my list of "outstanding Christian leaders of the 20th century" over time (and especially as you share your thoughts!)...  in fact, I anticipate doing so.   Two quick things that stand out to me - one is the place in God's kingdom for intellectuals who "used to be skeptics" (including the apostle Paul!).  I like what CDebater says: "all christians are either pre-skeptical or post-skeptical." 

The second noticeable thing is the inevitable "man behind the man"... the pattern of men and women behind each of these leaders who prayed for them, witnessed to them, challenged them, taught them, inspired them, mentored them, and in every way modeled Christ to them!  Each of these leaders "got their ideas mostly from other people," and were supported by numerous other Christians (and sometimes even by non-Christians).

The "supporting"/"mentoring" role is extremely non-trivial.

And finally, again, God Himself is the One who is truly/most/completely worthy of our adoration and praise.  No one else compares.  The brightest of our light is simply a dull reflection, or more accurately a weak transmission (fiber optic analogy), of the magnificent, compassionate, almighty, Light of the World.

Which Christians from the last century stand out most to you?

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

Here's an interesting article about the woman scientist who discovered soft extant dinosaur tissue in "68-million-year-old" dinosaur bones.

Here's an excerpt of the part that especially caught my eye:

"...Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”"

First, it's interesting to note her a priori philosophical bias, which is certainly "methodological naturalism" and probably steps over the boundary of "philosophical naturalism" too...  Her view is that God absolutely CANNOT work in time and space in scientifically detectable ways... in other words, God could be good, and loving, and kind, and powerful, and whatever else, but He most certainly CANNOT interact with the world He has created in ways that could be detected by humans - God absolutely CANNOT do miracles.   If He could (so reasons the phobia), then people might actually believe in God based on evidence rather than blind faith. (Oh!  Horrors!)

According to Schweitzer, "invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science."

Oh, well excuse me.  Forgive me for asking, but who makes up these "rules" again?  Shame on Newton, Kepler, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Maxwell, Stokes, Pasteur, and Kelvin for indulging in such flagrant scientific naughtiness.

Schweitzer is not alone in her complaint, of course.  Michael Ruse writes: "Even if Scientific Creationism were totally successful in making its case as science, it would not yield a 'scientific' explanation of origins. The Creationists believe that the world started miraculously. But miracles lie outside of science, which by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable, that which is governed by law." (Darwinism Defended, p. 182).

Similarly Richard Lewontin writes: "Either the world of phenomena is a consequence of the regular operation of repeatable causes and their repeatable effects, operating roughly along the lines of known physical law, or else at every instant all physical regularities may be ruptured and a totally unforeseeable set of events may occur.... We can not live simultaneously in a world of natural causation and of miracles, for if one miracle can occur, there is no limit." (Scientists Confront Creationism, New York: Norton, 1983, p. 26)
...and also...
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

Unnerving indeed, in all honesty.  It is non-trivial and (potentially life-altering) to find (paraphrasing C.S.Lewis) "a real, live God in our midst".

Now granted, methodological naturalism can be useful, in finding out "the way things usually work" (also called "nomological" investigation - the study of how things generally proceed, based on the "laws" (Greek 'nomos') that govern the universe).   But as soon as it morphs into an 'Absolute Principle', the openminded curiosity which is the chief treasure of the scientific endeavor is discarded.  As soon as I state that "I've never observed a miracle in my laboratory, therefore God has never done (and can never do) a miracle" or even worse, "I refuse to believe in miracles because that might allow [Lewontin's proverbial] Divine foot in the door", I have unjustifiably closed and locked my mind.   In agreement with William James, and contra W.K.Clifford, "unlimited skepticism" can sometimes be a hindrance to finding the truth...

Schweitzer is almost technically correct when she disparages "invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena", in the sense of invoking the "miraculous" hand of God in suspending the laws that He has ordained that generally govern the physical world.  But she neglects to mention that the whole controversy is about exactly that point - what phenomena are natural and what are not?  ...and is it possible that some phenomena truly CANNOT be explained naturalistically?  (the origin of matter, the origin of DNA, Christ walking on water, Christ's Resurrection)?

When I throw a basketball up in the air and it falls back to the ground, there is no need to infer a "miracle" - there is not necessarily any suspension of the normal processes of gravity that God has established.   But must we assume that God is bound by these laws that He created?  That He can never suspend them if He so chooses?

In my humble opinion, we ought not to make such "metaphysically gratuitous" assumptions.  As Steven Meyer writes (with my insertion), "Of course intelligent design [and creationism] is not wholly naturalistic, but why does that make it unscientific? What noncircular reason can be given for this assertion? What independent criterion of method demonstrates the inferior scientific status of a nonnaturalistic explanation?" 

By contrast, the Kansas folks got it right:

Older 2001 Definition: "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world
around us."

Revised 2005 Definition: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses
observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument
and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural
phenomena."
"More adequate", "more accurate", "closer to the truth about the way the world works"... This is the true and noble goal of science... the aim of that worthy perennial nomological enterprise... that "glory of kings."

 

This post is for Dan (I forgot to write down your email address last night :) ...

I'm working on an official reply to the discussion thread at http://www.xanga.com/ArgumentsFromtheRight/458794085/item.html ... hopefully I'll post it (on my Xanga) later this week.  But until then, feel free to read the old thread to get a feel for some of the facets of our discussion...  It's pretty long (41 printed pages), but worth reading if you have the time, in my opinion... especially the last 10 pages or so (the last 2 or 3 xanga comment-pages).

...and if you would like to check out some info on the evidence in favor of the reliability of the Gospels, I recommend this site for some nice, balanced, well-referenced discussion on all the issues.  For example, this is a nice place to start: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nuhbias.html .   If you want to dive into a higher level of detail, you might enjoy reading http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stilldex.html , a multi-part study and dialog with a skeptic about the writing of the New Testament.  And if you have lots of free time and lots of skeptical questions and feel like exploring something random, try reading some of the other fascinating articles at the site!

Look for my next installment later this week, hopefully... 

With esteem and respect,

Tim

What is it? 

It is: a collective tendency to revise the teaching and operation of the Church, in more "liberal" directions... a reaction against perceived inadequacies in traditional Christianity and church life... a significant change in emphasis, whose supporters describe as "getting back to the life and teachings of Jesus" and the Early Church, but whose critics describe as an attempt to remake God Himself "in our own image."

Why does it exist?  What is fueling it?

The movement in the church (primarily the Western church) comes as educated societies around the world are becoming deeply enamored with Postmodernism - the slow pendulum of global thought burgeoning toward relativism after the inexorable failure of the three-century-long modernist movement, and especially after the genocidal horror of the World Wars and the nuclear fears of the Cold War.
Globalization and the information explosion are also relevant factors, as the implicit question "How do you know that you are right?" stands out in sharp glare with the extreme contemporary diversity and physical proximity of religious and theological views.  The Emergent Church's answer to that question has a distinct Buddhist flavor - "It doesn't matter whether you're right or not.  The journey is more important than the destination."

The actual content points of the movement are generally not new.  They are merely contemporary rephrasements of modernist skeptical liberalism, in many of the same areas.  The original higher-criticism has morphed into postmodern/cultural/deconstructivist criticism of the Scriptural texts, with a resulting similar view of the Scriptures.  Open Theism is closely linked with the Emergent movement, as are discussions on homosexuality, the role of women in the church, the inerrancy (and relevancy) of Scripture, and questions on the exclusivity of Christ.  It is no longer enough to show that the Scriptures teach something; it is also necessary to show the normative authority and "finality" of the Scriptures.

Other growth factors (especially in the USA) include the affluence of the younger generation and the regrettable pharisaical/anti-intellectual tendencies of some conservative churches.  Persecution tends to clarify and disperse relativistic thinking, because only people who are utterly convinced that there is only one way to God will accept persecution and death for their stand...  And the stigma of pharisaical conservatism raises an unfortunate backlash against doctrine and propositional truth.  The strong element of reactionism gives the Emergent Church its emphasis on "wholistic," non-formulaic Christianity, including traditional monastic/Eastern-Orthodox elements and "cultural" Jewish etiological interpretations of the Scriptures.

Although there are some negative aspects of the Emergent Church, there are also positive elements such as a renewed emphasis on love, gentleness, and unity.  Such emphases are reminiscent of Paul's request to the Philippians - "...Make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others."

 

Where is it going?

Although only God knows what will happen according to His perfect plan, I see the Emergent Church continuing to "emerge" over the next decade or two, further broadening the public conception of what it means to be a "Christian".  The true Biblical Church of those who are following Christ will not disappear, but it will be masked by a continuum of "nice christian people" who believe in everything from Mary to reincarnation.  The wheat and the tares will live side by side, as the West becomes more pagan.
Biblical Christianity meanwhile will flourish around the world in spite of intense persecution.  America will eventually face similar demographic trends as Europe, and within a few decades the Emergent Church will be primarily a historical phenomena, its insights merged into the mainstream.  But the "mainstream" itself will begin to change drastically.  The West will eventually see only three 'religious' views - timid secular pluralistic humanism, relatively pure Christianity, and Islam, and then as Jesus foretold "an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God."  But the Lord God's true Church will "emerge" at the End unscathed and unsinged, because the Lord Jesus Christ Himself is the one who is building and sustaining it, and "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."

 

How ought true Christians to relate to it?

Accept what is good (Biblical) in the Emergent Church, and throw away what is counterfeit (un-Biblical) (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22).  This will necessitate deep and sincere study of the Bible, to be able to discern God's unchanging truth and understand how to share it relevantly to a fast-changing culture.
The Emergent emphasis on love and unity can be assimilated by discerning Christians while simultaneously not neglecting to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." (Jude 3)
Let us resolve to "be ready always to give an answer to any man who asks the reason for the hope that is within... yet with meekness and gentleness." (1 Peter 3:15)
Strife and dissension will come - let's not be afraid of it.  Simultaneously, however, "as much as depends on you, live at peace with all men." (Romans 12:18)

 

In sum, what we need in the Church today is not less doctrine, but more love.

 

 

Interesting historical glimpse... Johann Sebastian Bach's acceptance letter for the Leipsig Thomas-Schule Cantor position, with my comment below...

May 5 1723

Whereas the Honorable and Most Wise Council of this Town of Leipzig have engaged me as Cantor of the Thomas-Schule and have desired an undertaking from me in respect to the following points, to wit:

(1) That I shall set the boys a shining example of an honest, retiring manner of life, serve the School industriously, and instruct the boys conscientiously;

(2) Bring the music in both the principal Churches of this town into good estate, to the best of my ability;

(3) Show to the Honorable and Most Wise Council all proper respect and obedience, and protect and further everywhere as best I may its honor and reputation; likewise if a gentleman of the Council desires the boys for a musical occasion unhesitatingly provide him with same, but otherwise never permit them to go out of town to funerals or weddings without the previous knowledge and consent of the Burgomaster and Honorable Directors of the School currently in office;

(4) Give due obedience to the Honorable Inspectors and Directors of the School in each and every instruction which the same shall issue in the name of the Honorable and Most Wise Council;

(5) Not take any boys into the School who have not already laid a foundation in music, or are not at least suited to being instructed therein, nor do the same without the previous knowledge and consent of the Honorable Inspectors and Directors;

(6) So that the Churches may not have to be put to unnecessary expense, faithfully instruct the boys not only in vocal but also in instrumental music;

(7) In order to preserve the good order in the Churches, so arrange the music that it shall not last too long, and shall be of such nature as not to make an operatic impression, but rather incite the listeners to devotion;

(8) Provide the New Church with good scholars;

(9) Treat the boys in a friendly manner and with caution, but, in case they do not wish to obey, chastise them with moderation, or report them to the proper place;

(10) Faithfully attend to the instruction in the School and whatever else it befits me to do;

(11) And if I cannot undertake this myself, arrange that it be done by some other capable person without expense to the Honorable and Most Wise Council or the School;

(12) Not go out of town without the permission of the Honorable Burgomaster currently in office;

(13) Always so far as possible walk with the boys at funerals, as is customary;

(14) And shall not accept or wish to accept any office in the University without the consent of the Honorable and Learned Council;

Now therefore I do hereby undertake and bind myself faithfully to observe all of the said requirements, and on pain of losing my post not to act contrary to them, in witness whereof I have set my hand and seal to this agreement.

Johann Sebastian Bach, Leipzig, May 5, 1723

 

Bach's desire and promise (well-fulfilled!) to compose music "not to make an operatic impression, but rather incite the listeners to devotion" is the perfect ideal for Christians today as well...!    Our goal ought to be to exalt Christ, and to minimize attention to ourselves...   to "incite the listeners" to meditate on Christ, pray to Him, tell Him of their gratitude, and worship Him...

Related to yesterday's entry, http://www.christian-thinktank.com/adam03.html is a cool article!

Since writing the above sentence, I just read the article again.   It is EXTREMELY awesome and relevant.   There are loads of good thoughts to meditate on in the article.  If you are a "skeptical" person or have ever experienced some disillusionment with "the church" and "what we're expected to believe" versus "the hypocritical reality" that we see, or have ever had doubts about the Bible's veracity (in other words, if you are a sentient human ,  then I strongly encourage you to read the article and interact with it!

I'll probably also be reading it a few more times within the next few months...

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