I am not talking about a minimum necessary. I am talking about a relationship. God is not a thing or a natural process. God is a Person. We are persons and since God created us in God’s own Image, God must be a person. If there was a question about this, it should have been resolved by Jesus the Messiah and Son of God Who is perfectly God and perfectly human, and perfectly personal.
That is not what the Bible is. The OT is a collection of books about the OT covenant of the Jews with YHWH and the NT is about Jesus Christ and the NT covenant with God. As I said before, God did not send God’s Book. God sent God’s Messiah.
Christians grow in faith by doing and not by study. That means we must be prepared to admit our mistakes so we can learn from them.
You underestimate the rationality of humans. The God decision is not about facts. It is about how I want to live my live. Therefore, it must be a “subjective” decision that only I can make. However, if our experience is not real,
God’s love fpr all people is not ambiguous through Jesus Christ.
As long as there is war and injustice in this world it is not functioning as it should.
Do you believe that the human part of Jesus is equivalent to the God part? When I realized that Jesus, the Son of God, saves me because of His infinite Godness, and the finite human part is there to give me a glimpse of how much He loves me, then I finally got it through my thick skull that I don’t get to tell Jesus how He can relate to other people. He doesn’t have to come to others the same way He does to me. I think one of your later comments about belief being a personal thing is at least partially similar to this belief that I have. And it definitely is not true that I, as a finite being, cannot have a relationship with my infinite God, and His infinite Son, Jesus.
True, from our human viewpoint. But God’s purposes for us in this world are being fulfilled. Jesus’ comment to His disciples when they asked Him who had sinned, the man blind from birth ot his parents, is directly to this point. It’s not my job to fix the whole world. It’s my job to do what I can to help those near me. And I tend to partially agree with your other comment above that Christians grow in faith by doing, not by study. The “partially” is because study can help us focus on the right things (such as putting more emphasis on doing; as James said, faith without works is dead). The “agree” is that putting faith into action is critical to real growth.
And to bring this seeming offshoot back to the point of this thread, it takes both my faith in God and my understanding of science to provide me with guidance on how to identify needs, and what to do to try to help, when I observe a particular potential need for my assistance.
Absolutely! That really depends on what the problem is. And the other piece of my answer is that a large, difficult problem is almost always addressed more effectively by decomposition, leading to partial solutions. And many of the partial solutions that come out of this decomposition end up having very practical value.
I was thinking of I Corinthians 14: 34, but I think I was remembering some things my professors included in background information that doesn’t seem to be in the text. Sorry.
The point remains: Men who insist that women are not to be permitted to be considered as equal to men in ability to reason, understand, and communicate are operating in an ancient paternalistic society’s interpretation of the roles of men and women.
However, the fact also remains that things that God said, explicitly recorded in the bible, as being absolutely true instruction to His people at one time and place, do not automatically apply in exactly the same way to others of His people, in a different time and place. Peter’s vision is a direct counter-example to the claim I heard in my religious education through the first two years of pre-ministerial.
It helps to understand that hierarchy does not depend on inequality, and submission does not depend on a disagreement of will.
Grudem’s updated Systematic Theology has a helpful section about this. Does anyone know of any good responses? While he corrected his view on the eternal generation of the Son, he did a decent job of defending his view on eternal functional subordination.
And also, it’s helpful to appreciate how women can have a position of greater authority in the new creation over their former husbands.
Yes , makes sense. I am a scientist or at least I was years ago. I never ran an experiment that I did not hope it would turn out like I hoped it would. That is why I ran the experiment in the first place but I still had faith it would turn out the way I had envisioned. I guess that is faith in a way.
For me the result of an experiment is just how the Creator would have intended it to go. God created everything so he created the chemistry, physics, etc. that shows how things work or how he created something. However, my experimental results turn out I have seen how God’s elegant science worked. Make Sense?
One of my physics professors quoted someone earlier in science who said what a wonderful happenstance it was that mathematics should bear some resemblance to reality.
He also had some words to say about theorists who seemed to operate on the principle that reality should bend to their mathematics.
Historically the emergence of YECism in the church can be traced to the adoption by society of the framework of scientific materialism, which is the source of the idea that in order to be true something has to be 100% scientifically and historically correct. YECists don’t recognize that what they are actually doing is insisting that this de facto atheistic assumption has to apply to the Bible in the face of the fact that the Bible never makes such a claim about truth.
Someone once told I didn’t have “real faith” because I came to it via serious investigation starting with the premise that if there is a Creator who created thinking beings then it stands to reason that He would make an effort to communicate with those beings, and so I set down criteria concerning what I would expect such communication to be like. Supposedly doing an investigation is held to exclude the Holy Spirit! I asked, “Then why does God invite, 'Come now, let us reason together” and His apostle says to examine everything, and last and the opposite of least, why is His Son referred to as ‘logic’, i.e. the Logos?"
The flip side of that was people asking why I didn’t give consideration to the Greek and Roman gods and such, as though all claims to deity are equal; I just said I didn’t find soap operas believable on television so I certainly didn’t in supposedly higher beings, so my first criterion was that any claimant to deity had to be ‘big’ enough to be Creator of all and not some ludicrous figure that was obviously a decadent human being writ large.
Another criterion can be found in C. S. Lewis, namely that with reason it isn’t going to get shown that God must be believed in, only that it is reasonable to do so.
And I think that what filled in the gap was echoed by Peter’s query to Jesus, “Lord, to whom else shall we go? You have the words of eternal life”.
I agree. But to assume that reality behaves in accordance with our observed models (induction) involves faith in any case. Of course, some may require more or less faith than others. I have more “faith” that the universe is more that the universe is more than 5 minutes old with an apparent past than that numbers exist in a platonic sense.
What I am trying to point out here and above (I’m sure it sounds like I am being overly pedantic, and my apologies for this) is science is very pragmatic in nature, and I’d even argue this is how holds its current elevated status in our minds and the minds. But pragmatic doesn’t necessarily mean true, at least not how we usually use the word “true.” Being a scientific realist to many involves going beyond scientific pragmatism and into metaphysical claims about the merits of science that must be justified outside of science to avoid being circular.
To assume our senses are able to achieve reality involves assumptions that are not formed on the basis of observation, logic, proof, etc. My sense of touch tells me the table in front of me is solid, while scientific models suggest it is mostly empty space. Which is more “reality”? Of course, they both are. But the assumption that objects are, in fact, solid (and thus that our senses are in fact reliable) was an incorrect assumption that humans had for a long time. In other words, being a scientific realist involves needing to specify which scientific theories one should take to be true or “real.” It is widely held, not least by realists, that even many of our best scientific theories are likely false, strictly speaking, hence the importance of the notion that theories may be “close to” the truth (that is, approximately true) even though they are false.
There is also the assumption about objects and events having an quantifiable existence. Do planets and stars really exist as discrete entities. Drawing that line can get blurry too. When is a planet no longer a planet? When is a rock no longer a rock? Especially when confronted with the impossibility of having an infinite number of objects. There does seem to be a real distinction that can be made between faith and realism.
Paul, it’s good to see you back to your thread again. It’s been a while since I looked it over. I’ve been reviewing this afternoon.
I also read about 1/3 of the Plato article about Scientific Realism. It’s pretty long. I wonder what sections, or better, what points you find most valuable in it.
Sorry my reply is so chopped up. There hasn’t been more time to pull together something more unified.
Since the beginning of the thread, I have felt like there’s a need for some precise definitions of “faith” and a clarification of their appropriate contexts. For example, you offered Hebrews 11:1-3 in the OP, but that is part of a wider context including Hebrews 10:32-11:40, which cannot appropriately be applied to science…
32 But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35 Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. 37 For, “Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay; 38 but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” 39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls. By Faith 11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. 4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God.
This can’t apply to science, if for no other reason, we have no promises from God related to science, even if we are forced to make assumptions about how to go about carrying it out (which does not constitute “faith”).
You mentioned these as giving evidential weight to faith. While I am inclined to agree with you as far as faith in Jesus goes, these are very different kinds of evidences than what is required as evidence in science. One cannot be repeated and would be hard, if not impossible to verify, the other is subjective. These should be thrown out as scientific evidence.
I think T_aquaticus expressed it well:
Moving from spiritual faith to scientific understanding and authority:
What else would this process be describing or attempting to describe? (Does anyone claim “all of reality”?)
From where would you say the current claim of authority originates?
No. It’s not faith. It’s an honest assessment that the methods used now (and whatever methods will developed and used in the future, because those keep changing) will continue to help people learn more about the world and how it works.
I think you’re really limiting your view of what is going on in the sciences.
But sure, there are whole branches that are math dependent, which I can’t even imagine. But what is the math’s purpose? In at least some areas of physics the math indicates there could be or likely is something to explore or anticipate. That “predictive” power is not treated as proof, is it? But rather gives direction to study and the development of tools to do the study.
And the math itself is an evolving tool, isn’t it? It wasn’t “just there” from the beginning.
As far as the quadrivium and trivium go, we are not bound to past educational philosophy, values and practice. They all have their glories and follies.
Hallucinations, false memories, etc. are hard to replicate in lab settings, much less in scientists employing them personally in their research. Hallucinating scientists would be found out. Lying ones are – eventually. Along with dishonest ones paid by the tobacco and oil industries.
Here I refer you to one of James’s many, many explanations of radiometric dating, how it’s done by a variety of methods and how measuring in a variety of ways helps confirm the conclusion.
Of course the observation was both wrong and right. The marvel is that empty space can be so solid, as my pinky toe regularly affirms. The other marvel is that people have learned about this aspect of the natural world by means of the senses.
Thus the ever expanding development of observational strategies and tools, the ever greater attempt to extend the reach of of our senses for observation.
In brief, I still don’t see your point about “faith” related to science. Unless you were to adopt @mitchellmckain view expressed here.
But assuming you made it, and I were convinced, then what?
Thank you very much for your comment about your path to understanding! I intentionally cut off your statement because it struck me square between the eyes that the partial statement is right at the core of the relationship between science and faith that has helped me come to a much better understanding of who God is. What actually exists, what we can see by direct observation, is exactly what God either put into this world, or allowed to get here, if God is actually the Creator, and actually does care about us, and really does want us to have a relationship with Him. (I can’t waste my time believing in a God/Creator who exists, if He doesn’t care, doesn’t want to be involved.) So I have come to believe very strongly that science can help us understand what God may have meant by what he has revealed in other ways. As a specific example of something that we can observe in God’s universe, that we can use to help us understand something about God, is that God has chosen to remain difficult to observe objectively; my personal belief is based on my own subjective experiences, and is reinforced by the witness of many others to their own subjective experiences (“subjective” here carries connotations of being personal, not something that is independent of the person involved). So why would God not want to be so obvious that everyone would have to acknowledge His existence? Long ago an atheist commented on the Arpanet that he would grovel if God showed Himself to the atheist, and otherwise, would not grovel. So I believe that God chooses not to be so obvious that this rational man would grovel, instead of developing the kind of relationship that God wants with him, a relationship built on love.
Who has more faith… the one who checks whether his ideas fit the facts or the one who refuses to look at the facts because they might disagree with his ideas?
It reminds me of the words of Jesus quoting Isaiah…
13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says:
‘You shall indeed hear but never understand,
and you shall indeed see but never perceive.* 15 For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and their ears are heavy of hearing,*
and their eyes they have closed,* lest they should perceive with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,* and understand with their heart,
and turn for me to heal them.’*
Which of those above are closing their eyes and ears?
I am also reminded of the parable of the talents, where fault is found with the fearful man who would take no chances and returns what he was given with nothing invested. Faith is not this fearful way of living.
On the other hand… I have encountered believers who see a value in blind faith. It has its place on the battlefield, where there is no room for long debate. Sometimes you do need to trust others and follow. But on the other hand, this is responsible for some of the greatest disasters when we put our faith in the wrong people… then you have to wonder if this so called “faith” is not better described as a lazy abdication of responsibility.
Not sure why but this reminds me of a C.S. Lewis poem:
NO BEAUTY WE COULD DESIRE
Yes, you are always everywhere. But I,
Hunting in such immeasurable forests,
Could never bring the noble hart to bay.
The scent was too perplexing for my hounds;
Nowhere sometimes, then again everywhere.
Other scents, too, seemed to them almost the same
Therefore I turn my back on the unapproachable
Stars and horizons and all musical sounds,
Poetry itself, and the winding stair of thought.
Leaving the forests where you are pursued in vain
–Often a mere white gleam–I turn instead
To the appointed place where you pursue.
Not in Nature, not even in Man, but in one
Particular Man, with a date, so tall, weighing
So much, talking Aramaic, having learned a trade;
Not in all food, not in all bread and wine
(Not, I mean, as my littleness requires)
But this wine, this bread…no beauty we could desire.
~C.S. Lewis, Poems, (1964)
Lewis seems to indicate that science and human reason can do no more than catch a glimpse of God – “a mere white gleam” – but that the only way to “catch” is to be caught, that the only place to meet God is where He has appointed… or rather Whom He has appointed.
At a summer Christian campout my sister started the custom of reading the Narnia books out loud for our little tent cluster during the evening break for dinner. Any time someone recognized a line she would make a note in the margins.
The number of unstated references to history, philosophy, and theology was absolutely astounding, and perhaps more astounding was the presence of occasional references to science, something I hadn’t associated with Lewis until she came up with this collaborative exercise in seeing “behind” the story.
If I could have a copy of her copy of those books…
I don’t see that this follows – it’s like saying that since the set of reals is infinite, the set of integers is incomprehensible or useless. All that is required for communication is that both have access to a shared subset of the infinite.