Yes–one could even say it’s the nature of all religions to struggle with that. Good point.
2 Likes
Are you really going to claim that there is no such thing as chance because the Bible says so?
I am not sure that I dare argue in case it damages your views of God.
But then again you have no respect for YECs so why should I respect your views of chance?
Before I have the time to construct the response you might like to consider whether you will dare look at it.
Richard
This kind of talk does very little to further the conversation. It is also not going to win you many sympathetic ears. Disagreeing with a person’s beliefs is not the same as disrespecting the person, after all.
I will agree that the Bible states that chance does not exist. It is a fundamental part of Hebrew philosophy. But, so is the 7 day creation.
You appear to be setting the bible against reality. Which is what you accues of YECs.
Chance exists. That is not my opinion it is fact. Here are some Scientific papers on the subject
The science of chance and randomness
The science of chance
And there just so happens to be a BBC 4 program on the subject (what are the chances!)
Tails you win
One Biblical side note. When Jesus recounted the story of the Good Samaritan both the Levire and the Priest “happened” to be passing. There was no guidance from God just a collision of two events that was not planned (As near chance as the Bible gets)
I should not need to go any further. Just to say that either
The Bible is wrong and chance exists
or
You have misinterpreted what the bible means.
As you do not respect my theology I will not offer an alternative at this time.
Richard
Footnote
You clearly have not followed the discussions I have had with @Dale . His opinion of me is very clear. However, I believe Christ when He states that we risk swimming with a millstone if we put a stumbling block in any believer’s way. That should clarify my previous post.
You talked a lot about God’s sovereignty in what I quoted above, but then you claim that he is not sovereign over everything, including raindrops and clouds. Was Jesus not sovereign over the raindrops and clouds (not to mention the air molecules involved in the wind) during the storm on the Sea of Galilee? Does chance apply to God?
There is a difference between sovereignty and control. Charles is now our sovereign but he has almost no control over his kingdom.
Are governed by the Laws of Nature that God ordained and are therefore under His sovereignty but not His direct control
Genesis 2: 2 states that God finished His work. You have disregarded most of Genesis 1 perhaps you will allow this?
God finished His creation. He does not have to continually tinker or adjust. It is as He ordained, self-regulating, according to His sovereignty and design.
Miracles are exceptions. There are those here who do not think that miracles contradict the laws of nature. Of course God can control the weather, but that does not mean He either has to, or does (outside miracles)
That is not a simple question
Does God allow chance? Yes, it is part and parcel of His creation and integral to personal freedom and choice.
For instance. I sell tools and hardware but the nuts bolts and screws are just random from people’s sheds. I do not buy packs from a wholesaler (usually) Whether I have what a customer wants is absolutely by chance. There is no control by me let alone God. And there is no reason why God would ensure that the right nail was available at any one time. Furthermore, I often sell out of particular items. God would not be interested who bought them and who was too late. There is no reason for Him to. That leaves it to… chance!
God’s purpose does not rely on chance. Which is why I criticise the traditional view of evolution. That would appear to be using chance to create humanity.
God can, and probably does overrule chance situations. The Ephod being a biblical example. But whether He does? That is more for belief and or conjecture.
Now we reach my opinions. Take them or leave them
I think you need to temper your views on how much God controls things. He does not need to control the minutia. Chance is often nothing more that a combination of unrelated events coinciding or interacting: unplanned and uncontrolled. Illness, accidents, so-called acts of God, are outside of God’s direct influence, not because He can’t but because He doesn’t (By His choice)
What you are claiming is closer to the “New World” of Revelation and prophecy. Then God will both dictate and control. But that is to come. It is not now.
Richard
There is a difference between your ‘sovereign’ and his sovereignty. Sovereignty implies control. Charles does limited control over some things, but not the minutiae. God is not so impaired.
You’re funny. There is a difference between a work being finished and being forbidden from ever touching it, ever intervening in its operation again.
How do you suggest that Jesus calmed the storm on Galilee if he was not in control of the minutiae?
You appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing. I have already answered this.
I never said such a thing.
I not only believe in miracles (God’s intervention) I have both witnessed and been a part of them
Furthermore, Christianity is a testament to God’s continuing work and influence. The main difference being that we invite God in. He does not force Himself upon anyone or everyone. Your views would seem to be different. It is also a testament to God that He manages to work without disturbing those who do not believe in Him or making His presence visible to them.
That is due to His omniscience and understanding of time and events.
Richard
That’s your answer, just ‘probably’?
This not about whether I believe He does or not.
You cannot force your beliefs onto the rest of the world.
I have told you that I do believe in God’s continuing involvement in His world.
Richard
I’m just trying to figure out what ‘randomness’ God is not sovereign over (theologically, not scientifically ; - ).
Let’s put it this way: “What randomness is he forbidden from interacting with?”
None.
But what He does is beyond my pay grade
Richard
1 Like
I’m challenged in deciding how best to reply to you, @St.Roymond, and this entire conversation, how much of my limited time it’s worth to try to put together a coherent reply that will then be ignored or dismissed.
I’m also reticent to engage much more in this thread, or its near clones that largely currently populate the rest of the forum, where people are just lobbing theological hand grenades, accusing each other of weak or false faith, an insufficient God-concept, or an overall ignorance of the other’s favorite proof texts. It’s become a food fight.
This from the FAQ:
- Assume legitimate Christian faith on the part of other people, unless they identify otherwise. The purpose of discussions here is not to judge the legitimacy or efficacy of anyone’s faith or lack of faith.
To begin with: Weak Faith.
No. This does not remain on the table. It’s covered by the FAQ.
Weak faith is not necessarily tied to YEC, and YEC is not necessarily tied to Weak Faith. I mentioned in my earlier post @adamjedgar and @RichardG. In spite of all our theological, doctrinal, philosophical disagreements, neither of these men give any evidence of weak faith.
While there are many things, including YEC, that can weaken faith, a literal reading of Genesis and all that goes with it has been the longest standing view among Christians.
Additionally, denominations whose confessions were completed at least 200 years before Origin was published have been sources of strong Christian faith and fellowship ever since. You are hitting below the belt to make blanket statements about entire denominations, much less individual believers.
Likewise, theology related to the means of grace is out of place here as it is unrelated to YEC. Condemning denominations regarding these theological differences is, again, hitting below the belt.
Cultural Periods/Historic Eras
Regarding rational thought/rationalization/ratiocination: I believe you and I are taking about different things. I am talking about cultural periods/historic eras, particularly in regard to Premodern and Modern periods. The date ranges for the periods vary widely, depending on the discipline or writer. No matter in this context. The Bible, even the NT is a Premodern collection of texts, and we exist in a world of Modern demands on thought and epistemology (Sorry. I hate to use that word).
Paul was able to walk into a different forum and talk with pagan philosophers about an unknown god on fairly level ground. They all believe some sort of supernatural existed in which they lived and moved… To the Romans, a Christian was an atheist for failing to appease the proper local Roman god/s. It had nothing to do with belief in the supernatural vs no belief in the supernatural.
Click image to go to related article.
A few paragraphs from that article:
In broad terms we can see the historical premodern as a transition in social behavior from the sufficiency economy of nomadic gathering and hunting to the surplus economy of agrarian sedentism and urban life; in religious practices from animistic or pantheistic paganism into hierarchical polytheism and eventually monothesim; all in step with with a transition in political systems from poorly organized tribalism to areas ruled by petty thugs and gang leaders to city-states ruled by “god-kings” and more grandiose thugs, thugs committed to providing order and protecting you from other thugs on some minimal level. The sum of these developments is usually termed Civilization. At its height in the Classical Age this odd collection of societies ruled by kings, warlords, priests, oligarchs and demagogues produced much exquisite art, the beginnings of philosophy and scientific theorizing, and most of what we now consider organized religion, while upholding the solid existing traditions of slavery, continual warfare and skirmishing, massively unequal distribution of wealth, and urban populations subsisting on a deficiency diet of “mainly grain”.
In general we can see modernity as a rejection of mysticism in favor of materialism, of superstition in favor of science, of rulership by ecclesiastically supported divine right in favor of government based on contractual legal principles, of human inspiration and originality in favor of method and repeatability, of moral agency in favor of reflex and conditioning as the determinants of behavior, and of oral traditions in favor of the printed word. In addition modernity is closely associated with a secular faith in historical progress, in terms of scientific and technological advances, expanding economies, and the realization of utopian social possibilities. So it was indeed a fulfillment of the promise of the printing press and of earlier Protestant science and industry to put knowledge within the grasp of the “common man” and to make the acquisition of wealth a positive social objective for all. And in large measure it was able to maintain the myth of progress or rapid “upward” evolution thanks to the huge deposits of fossil fuels, primarily coal and oil, that modern societies were able to exploit.
All this to say:
-
The assumptions our world makes today regarding what we assume to be true of the world, and how we understand things to be true has gone through an enormous change over many centuries. The Enlightenment is often pointed to as “the” point of that change, but it really is only one spot on a very long timeline. What we consider a rational process today follows mathematical and scientific types of reasoning based on observation and material proof.
-
Because of this, there is an underlying sense that Christian or any other faith must also result from as well as be subject to this type scrutiny. This explains the intense desire for, insistence on apologetic “proof” of one kind or another. YECs are not alone in this desire. As I indicated by bringing up the apologetics industry.
-
The tools we have to demonstrate the reasonableness of our faith are not the tools required of modernism. The texts we have to work with are under intense scrutiny and not charitably held by many, particularly academics of all stripes.
-
A scientific understanding of the world brings all manner of interpretation of biblical texts into question, not only regarding origins. As a woman, I have a few particular passages in mind.
YECs as well as many others (check your local directory of apologists) are attempting to faithfully practice Christianity. They want to serve Jesus and follow him well. And they are attempting to reconcile their faith with a view of the world that helps them see that faith as reasonable. Which is reasonable. But the modern conditions are not favorable to an ancient faith.
An important question to keep in mind is one that Richard has repeatedly stated in different words: if you dismantle the theological underpinnings for someone’s faith, assuming that it really has been built on that, what supports are you providing them throughout the process to help support and even strengthen their faith. It’s a right and righteous stubbornness that continues to look out for the flock in this way.
A footnote to this post:
4 Likes
Thank you , @Kendel for your thoughtful post, trying to push us to think about this question in the appropriate manner. I, too, have begun thinking about what this whole thread means, because I have a brother with whom I have difficulty discussing similar issues in a useful manner.
When I conseider the totality of what the different posters are saying, both in this thread and elsewhere, I am struck by how much we believe that is either the same, or very similar, expressed in a different way. And I am also struck by how much we talk past each other, presuming that we know what the other person means or believes because we interpret the words used as if each other person uses those same words in exactly the same way we use those words.
@St.Roymond I will start with a comment from you on one specific piece of a post from me, because I think it is relevant to the issue of talking correctly with YECs, and because I am certain that you will take my comments in the manner they are intended: Suggestion, something to think about, and you will certainly have to tweak the details, but you might even get some value from hearing what I have to say, and if you don’t find value, you can accept that I have a different viewpoint, and maybe my viewpoint is OK for me even if it isn’t the same as yours.
I said that I accept the possibility that God created the universe 6000 years ago, with every single sub-atomic particle in exactly the same place as it would heve been if the universe was created in a Big Bang. You (@St.Roymond) replied that you would say that makes God deceptive. I have to just slightly change that, to say, I believe, if in truth the YECs are right, which we cannot prove one way or the other by observation of what really happened, then God had a reason, a real purpose, for creating the universe such that it appears that He is deceptive; and that reason has got to be really important, because God is Love. Now, to be clear about what I believe, I think it is much more likely that God created the universe in the Big Bang. However, I don’t know that, only God knows for sure, and I also believe that it is not an issue that is essential for salvation whether someone believes in a 6000 year old universe, or believes in a Big Bang somewhere around 14 billion years ago.
Another topic of signiticant discussion and much argument with both sides actually much more in agreement than in direct opposition is the question of how much control does God exert in our world. @RichardG made a good point a few posts back:
Richard, this is a very good, and important point. The problem with understanding God’s control comes when we forget how He designed this universe: Over 10 to the 30th power atoms in a single human being, no single atom “controls” how the whole being works. And we don’t have any way of knowing the detailed state of any electron bound to any one of those atoms. But the whole works very predictably on the scale of the human: Accurate predictions of how the aggregates of atoms will perform, without even considerig the specific behavior of any single specific atom.
I am quite sure that God’s promise that, “All things work together for good” is actually quite similar. I don’t read this as God promising that every single thing will, in and of itself, be good for me. I do trust that God knows all the other things that have happened, are happening, and will happen (and I believe He tweaks things a bit when He knows it is appropriate - by this I mean miracles, or God acting outside of the rules that normally determine how the universe operates), and will make those things all lead to what He knows He wants me to experience.
The specific issue you are pointing out here is really another example of how unstated assumptions can lead to serious misinterpretations of what people say. From what I am reading, I am certain that you (Richard) have a different interpretation in detail of what it means that God controls everything that happens in the world He created than do most of the rest of us commenting in this thread. I specifically appreciate your distinction between knowing that something happened, and making it happen. I do believe that God lets us make real choices in this world, that really do have real consequences. I also believe, as Dale comments frequently, that God, existing outside of this created universe, knows everything that has happened in it, everything that is happening, and everything that will happen. I believe that He has used this knowledge to fit together a universe that fully meets His purposes for creating it, and for creating us in this universe. Those purposes most certainly do include allowing us to take actions in this world that do have consequences in this world. I am certain that we do have free will, and that really means something. However, I believe that God also knows what choices we all have made, are making, and will make, and does do a bit of tweaking, whether it was by placing a single quark just one nanometer different as the Big Bang was starting (God knowing that that minute difference would lead to exactly what He wanted almost 14 billion years later, with no further external influence from Him), or whether God actually shifted something in my head just as I was deciding what to do, so that the totality of all the things happening around me leads to good results (for His purposes, not necessarily for what I think is good for me!) for me.
Another significant point, clearly demonstrated by the fact that there are substantially different viewpoints being expressed in this thread about evolution, is that God created a universe where it is not able to be distinguished by observation what God has “caused” by setting up the initial conditions, and establishing the laws of physics by which His universe operates, and what God has caused by direct intervention in the processes that are occurring in the universe.
All of this leads me to agree enthusiastically with @Kendel that we really need to think about what we are trying to accomplish by our discussions. If we are really trying to help people to come to a better relationship with God, and with other people, we cannot be just trying to prove that our way of understanding God is the only right way. God does want a personal relationship with each of us. He just doesn’t want us to be so caught up in our own understanding that we don’t grant Him the right to relate to other humans in a different way than He relates to us.
1 Like
@Dale I am asking you to stop while you still have a faith. I do not accept your view of providential but it will serve no positive purpose to try and change it.
You believe that God is in control of evolution and that gives us an agreement Take it.
Richard
Huh. Interesting. You think my faith is in jeopardy? Why? And what exactly am I supposed to stop?
Ok, I think this conversation is running out of steam. I’m going to go head and close this one down. Feel free to start a new thread if folks have a topic they feel strongly about.
2 Likes
Whoops, I am late to this thread. I started this post 3 weeks ago and just had time to sit down and write it.
My personal journey out of YECism had a few features that I think may be helpful for some as well as my experience teaching many students who come from YEC backgrounds for 6 or 7 years now. But one thing to keep in mind is that you could have all the best arguments and presentation of truth and provide all sorts of other ways of reading the Bible and at the end of the day, your friends may become even more entrenched in their YECism. Sometimes it still shocks me that I can have some students take an entire semester on some topic, and still repeat exactly what they said at the beginning of the class, as if the entire semester was a waste of time for both of us. That is not usually the case, but it does happen more often than I wish and sometimes, people get really angry. As in storming out of class or coming up with games to mock me or trying to get me fired. So, just be aware that you can get a wide range of reactions, some of which are pretty rough.
- For myself, one of the things that really started to break down my YECism was having to teach a course on cosmology. Previously, my understanding of cosmology was filtered solely through YEC sites, and “researching” a topic basically meant trying to parrot YEC thought leaders. Really understanding these topics required expertise far beyond what I was able to do by myself and they certainly sounded so smart, as if they expertly understand these complex topics better than secular scientists (or those deceived people you know, actually doing the research). However, when I went to teach this course, I didn’t want just to repeat something I didn’t understand (either from YEC writers or practicing scientists). So I really, really tried to understand how we know what we know, which often meant trying to read actual scientific papers themselves instead of filtered through a YEC lens. This turned out to be my downfall as I found the actual science to make a lot of sense. It clearly was done with the rigor that science I saw myself and others doing, and wasn’t just some feeble attempt to explain away God.
- I eventually came to realize that I had been fooled by YEC writers. I don’t think they are actively lying, in the sense they know they are repeating falsehoods. I think their belief in YECism is so strong, that it can quickly and easily deal with information that challenges it. Morton’s Demon comes to mind. I think I’ve written about this myself here before, especially in terms of the extreme arrogance (at least I experienced) inherent to YECism.. This is the real difficult part of talking to anyone very entrenched in YEC. They of course very strongly believe that God’s word trumps anything else and to even question the interpretation of Genesis is akin to question whether God’s word is even true. I often show students a quote from Bernard Ramm saying that to question Gap Creationism in America in the 1950s was unthinkable. Unfortunately, realizing that I’d been fooled by YECism, I began to feel bitter towards their falsehoods, and that was a very unhelpful sort of attitude to carry into conversations. Some people could related to feeling lied to and liked my initial approach, but it was generally unhelpful to have such a focus on things wrong with YEC science.
- Instead, I generally try to focus on explaining how we know what we know and being honest about what we don’t know. This is generally more disarming for many YEC students since all they’ve ever heard about are “uncertainties” in scientific explanations. It is also a strange thing for many of them to hear what goes into modern scientific explanations. Many of them have never heard someone talk in a positive way about various scientific theories. This point is really important as I do it in the manner of “this is our best explanation at present and why.” Sometimes I will write on the board lots of observations that need explaining about our universe and how a single unifying idea (like the big bang theory) explains it all. I encourage students that they can replace the big bang theory, but they would need to explain all of this data. I’ve found this to be largely missing from YEC writing about science. They just simply try to dismiss modern science, yet largely lack explanations of their own. For example, they say that the amount of cosmic lithium is like 3 parts be billion less than what the big bang theory can currently describe, yet ignore the fact the big bang theory explains the other 99.999%+ of the elements very well. The creation alternative is “God sped up regular physics” or just "made the elements as is (in such a way that is easily matched by the big bang theory.). YET…
- This is where I would lose many students if I didn’t include various ways of reading Genesis alongside science. I think it is important to do this in a way that is not attacking YEC readings but is a neutral presentation of different perspectives with why and how people defend their positions. It is very refreshing and exciting for many students to see other ways of reading Genesis, and I try to put things in their hands. I also have a teaching I made on four different ways that people deal with science and faith conflicts and strengths and weaknesses to each. I put the task between them and God to synthesize the evidence and I think they appreciate me not telling them what to think. Sure, at the end of the day, many people still keep on believing what they originally came in with, but I hope to sow some seeds of excitement about God’s creation and how it is much more exciting and complex than anyone, including scientists, could have ever imagined.
7 Likes