I just read, “Playing Hard to Get” by Rich Mullins. While I appreciate that it is well-written (I’m an amateur writer myself), I think it’s off-base in that God is not hard to find at all. Jeremiah 29:13-4a says:
You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you,” declares the Lord,
I believe Jeremiah was prophesying about the time of Christ. Jesus dying on the cross makes us see the depth and horribleness of our sins and gives us the motivation to make the radical decision to live as followers of Christ, not merely living for ourselves. The resurrection gives us hope for a new life, or as Paul puts it, “a new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!”). And Paul, speaking to the Athenians, says in Acts 17:27:
God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.
We find God when we seek him with all of our hearts, and we do that by repenting of all sin and following Jesus - he gives us the motivation to seek God, and with all of our hearts, like Jeremiah talked about. For me, I found that when I stopped all of the actions and thoughts that by their nature clouded my vision of God, I saw clearly that God is an awesome, loving God. I know that because he sent Jesus down here to die for me and that made me want to seek God in my life all the more. And when we have a proper vision of God, we don’t expect Him to answer every prayer or to prevent evil in the world because we see that he gave us a way of dealing with the evil in our own hearts, and through that, by living like Christ, a way of dealing with the evil in our little realms.
Thanks for your note. I believe that Rich Mullins was writing like the Bible sometimes does–Psalms (10:1God, are you avoiding me? Where are you when I need you?); Job; and Ecclesiastes. As you may recall, he also wrote, “Our God is an Awesome God.”
The Bible is perhaps more reliable in my mind because it doesn’t polish things. It reports the nitty gritty–when God seems near, and when he’s far.
Did you also read the C S Lewis quote above it? Fascinating.
Yes, that is a nice quote by C.S. Lewis, and using the biblical definition of a saint, a true follower of Christ. They will see God in space, looking through the eyes of Jesus, and everywhere else, since it’s all His creation.
The OT view of God isn’t as clear as in the NT, that’s why Jesus came here, to give us a full revelation of God. So it’s expected that there would prayers in the Psalms like the ones you quoted. But it was revealed to David that Jesus would come, as Peter said in Acts 2 when he quoted Psalm 16:8-11:
‘I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,
because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.
You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence
So we can now share David’s joy, because we can experience having Jesus in our life.
Hi T! I appreciate your comments, and want to treat them thoughtfully.
Suppose you walk into the kitchen and a pot of spaghetti sauce is on the stove. There is no other evidence of intentional activity associated with that sauce anywhere. What you are saying is that unless someone can find definitive proof that the sauce was made by a person, you’ll simply believe it happened on its own. That’s what your comment looks like to me. Putting first life together is orders of magnitude more complex than a pot of spaghetti sauce!
Well, similarly, atheism is a naturalism of the gaps argument. The challenge is whether natural causes can actually fill some of those gaps.
That’s not my argument. My argument is that the science shows the molecules don’t behave that way.
Your last two paragraphs make me think the only ID folks you have spoken to are YEC. Certainly a 4.5byo Earth would disprove their interpretation of the Bible, but like you, I feel there are better ways to integrate science and the Bible.
Many of us are just going with the evidence. Abiogenesis is a position that can only be held IMO against the evidence. Shouldn’t people be told? And I also argue against atheistic evolution, the assertion that evolution did it all. The data can be argued to be “compatible” with that, but 1) it can’t be proven and 2) I think the data shows that evolution needed help.
When you walk outside and see a cloud in the sky, do you think a deity formed it instead of natural processes?
Atheism doesn’t state that there are natural processes for the things we currently don’t understand. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities.
What science shows that? I am unaware of any science which proves abiogenesis can’t happen.
Then why do ID supporters argue so vehemently against evolution and abiogenesis? That’s what I don’t understand, if they are like you and feel that they can integrate science and the Bible. For example, here are the governing goals of the Discovery Institute:
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. Wedge Document
All you need to do is go over to the forums at Uncommon Descent, and their disdain for science is really obvious and upfront.
If you saw spaghetti sauce boiling on the stove and didn’t have evidence of intentional activity associated with it, wouldn’t you think the Flying Spaghetti Monster was involved?
Hi Marty, I tip my hat to you! You have stated your case very graciously. You haven’t accused me of implicit atheism, or geocentrism-quality science, which are stinging accusations that sometimes get slung around the forum.
I disagree with you about the strength of the scientific evidence for evolution, but I feel like we can have productive, gracious conversations. Thanks!
Here’s the thing, Marty. We have many examples of people making pots of spaghetti sauce, and no examples of pots of sauce coming into being through natural processes. On the other hand, we have no examples of first life being put together in any way. It’s apples and oranges.
No, of course not. The molecules behave that way and it is consistent with natural processes.
What you have defined is agnosticism - a = not, gnosis = know. Atheism means “not god” - a = not, theos = god. Both are from Greek roots. Either you don’t know, or you hold an actual opinion about the existence of a god.
Science can’t prove abiogenesis can’t happen. It shows how things work. I claimed an opinion about abiogenesis based on the way the molecules work.
I can summarize my opinion based on these things we do know:
The few “building block molecules” that form naturally are vastly overwhelmed by contaminating crud, much of which also reacts with building block molecules.
The formation of long chain molecules like DNA and polypeptides requires endothermic reactions, which are not entropically favored. So you need structures in place (like cells or a laboratory) before you can build the long chain molecules, or they’ll just fall apart.
There’s other stuff which by itself is less compelling, but adds more weight:
The top-down research on “what is the simplest possible cell” shows how complex the “simplest” is.
The first “membrane” had to be selectively permeable.
Which came first? DNA or proteins? You need proteins to manage DNA, you need DNA to make proteins.
Having researched the science, I no longer have faith all this stuff came about on its own. … Ready? Perhaps I’m antipolypeptifarian?
Is there more to learn? Of course! Please don’t anyone say I’m trying to discourage research. But let’s be honest about what it shows.
T, you’ve got an axe to grind with these guys and their kin. I’m not willing to discuss their politics, so hopefully we can stick with the science and philosophy. These forums are best when we can learn from each other and clarify our own perspectives.
Hi Chris! Thanks for your gracious comments!
John - you are right, of course, that our experience does play into our interpretations. But the question the analogy is trying to focus on is, “Can/did natural processes do that?”
Apastofarian, we apastofarians are not against pastofarians, we just lack belief in the FSM. You are confusing us with militant apastofarians who think belief in the FSM is morally wrong and should be erradicated, but we are not all like that.
Not really. Even people of faith can admit they don’t know yet choose to believe anyway. There isn’t any more inconsistency in admitting we don’t know and yet remaining unconvinced. It isn’t a positive claim that God does not exist, just a judgement that the case in favor of belief has not been made to ones satisfaction.
You guys crack me up!!!