I appreciate the general sentiments @Klax, I didn’t see whatever post it was you refer to (it seems to have been deleted) but think in your current post, you have outlined some of the inherent difficulties of humans trying to make sense of it all.
I am about to put up another, what I imagine will be a more or less final post for me on this thread. It suggests another way of thinking through all this that you might be interested in, something I hope to start a new discussion about.
SOME FINAL THOUGHTS until next time
Appreciate your reply @Randy. I read that poem “Oh Yet we trust that somehow good”. It’s deep. I had a look at that book review too. It reminds me of another book I read about a year or so ago “The God I don’t understand”.
The poem, those books and a general theme even through this thread (and indeed in the Bible and much of Christian life) could be summarised as:
“I honestly don’t understand certain factors and can’t reconcile the things I don’t understand … but I still trust God and maybe one day I’ll understand”.
Breaking this down, the mechanics behind this could be described in the following formula:
The God Enigma formula (Christian version)
(this is my own thinking here but I’m sure others write about it)
X represents:
The general understanding of the character of God as just, omnipotent and omnipresent, and also as the definition of true love
Y represents:
Some issue, observation or experience that seems to cut across and be contradictory to the natural implications of X and that therefore feels troubling, wrong or unjust
When Y seems to contradict X, we are naturally forced to come up with Z
Z represents:
Some kind of theorisation or explanation(s) that try and explain or otherwise manage the tension we feel between X and Y. These can range from “I don’t understand but just trust” to all kinds of interesting theories, conceptualisations and round about explanations.
This same X+Y therefore Z equation obviously happens in other religions and has been happening for 1000s of years. It is indeed a feature of religion generally.
So much ink has been spilt hammering out all the Zs that the broad church of modern (and historic) Christianity has come up with. Ranging from the traditional camp to the liberal one and everything in between these Zs in the God enigma are both interesting and dizzying to (try to) examine. Like probably everyone reading, I have on and off been examining the Zs for a long time. Progressively more so in the last few years I’d say. The real pointy end of it all has bourne itself out in this thread.
Applying the general principle behind Occam’s Razor (which I see as basically a form of non biased common sense), I’m now stepping away from the X+Y necessitates Z God Enigma mental equations.
*A new algorithm is developing, one that I hope to test here perhaps on another thread *
Here is the new in equation I am working out:
The Metaphysical Enigma (from an evolutionary but non materialist framework)
X represents -
the evolution of religion as a human construct that came out of certain (1) cognitive and (2) social factors that developed through natural selection.
Y represents -
my current belief that despite the reality of X, there still is some kind of spiritual or ‘other’ world outside of pure materialism that we don’t really understand. This world is strangely obscure and hard to understand and frustratingly, does not seem to be able to be scientifically quantifiable or examinable but in my opinion still exists. I believe this based on the multitude of stories and some weird personal experiences I have had that defy or go beyond the explanatory powers of the above X alone, even notwithstanding the above. This world is however very, very mysterious to humanity as a whole. We (as humanity) have not properly understood or unlocked the metaphysical world yet in anything of a way we could rely upon but most of us feel and know within ourselves it is there, we just can’t explain it and as such it (the metaphysical generally) remains an enigma.
Indeed the presence of Y - whatever and however Y actually works has very much enhanced and deepened the vast varieties of X
It is now the Zs in this equation - the factors and theories that manage this tension that I want to explore. I could keep going over all the Zs within the earlier God Enigma (Christian framework) equation but I don’t want to. I actually think exploring this new equation - a whole new paradigm to understand and interpret information through - would be beneficial and constructive even from a traditional Christian perspective. Why? Well, if we let ourselves explore such paths - with (falling back within the bounds of the Christian perspective) the Holy Spirit protecting and guiding us, then we are likely to stumble - like perhaps how Darwin stumbled on the theory of evolution - on new and exciting facts and ways of thinking that might actually represent breakthroughs. Ways of thinking and understanding the world that might actually accord with reality in a deeper and truer way than we may have done previously. Who knows, we could unlock new doors, new ways of thinking that might enhance a Christian perspective. If truth is truth and our view of who God is according to the Christian worldview is the “real truth” like is believed and professed … then why wouldn’t we do this?
It is natural and human to be afraid of new paths … but I think we might find it will be worth it. And it is always more fun - and more safe, to go on such journeys together.
So, having said all that - I invite people to please join me in working out the above new equation in a new thread that I plan to start in the coming days or more likely weeks.
Note: whatever any such thread becomes - I wouldn’t want it evolving into something of a wild goose chase of all kinds of kooky theories. I’d hope it would remain grounded, fascinating, largely scientific when possible or at least based on proposing scientific hypotheses etc.
Thank you
Yes, but having said that, it’s still intellectually honest to say that as a Christian in apologetics, we are willing to examine every thing for face value. I don’t personally have a de facto inner voice telling me that what I believe is true. While I hope what I believe is true, I am willing to relinquish it if proven wrong. Otherwise, we can’t expect others to take our arguments seriously, either. Thanks.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.