My wife is asocial, especially now that she’s retired and her parents and my parents are dead. I’m waiting for the Holy Spirit to lead me somewhere. Until IT does, I accept what it has to offer where I am.
I kinda like my father’s words for my kind: a defective saint. But, theologically, yes, I’m Christian and a firm believer in the Incarnation, Transfiguration, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus of Nazareth, although I am still skeptical of his abiogenetic conception.
I can understand. Some mainstream scientists leave me feeling the same way.
Indubitably. But as long as they can do it without becoming “members” of the militant ex-Christian crowd, more power to them.
A bit more to say, but got a Dentist appointment to get to.
Predominantly, based on Barna’s research - I would add a majority hold therapeutic deism. That means that don’t read their bibles and don’t really understand the gospel. OT even the NT.
It seems like for many their Christianity is basically rituals and belief statements and they don’t have any actual encounters with God to fall back on when their rituals become empty and their belief statements fall short.
This does indeed sound again like the “disillusioned fundamentalist” syndrome. It’s important to realise that the different books of the Bible have different sources and need interpreting in the light of their contexts. Which is not to deny their inspiration. God has spoken to us at many times and in various ways (Hebrews 1:1)
My only issue is that I’m not a fundamentalistic person. The people I’ve encountered are not either. They are people who essentially says if there is no proof then why should they remain there. If there is no evidence of fine tuning, and everything extraordinary in the Bible is almost always just hyperbolic of metaphorical, then why remain. For some Jesus is the byproduct of rape and angels or demons are just metaphors. Some of the natural theology that develops seems to erase all supernatural aspects and then science can essentially answer all the questions for them.
First, I’m a physicist and can say that the evidence for fine tuning is quite strong. The alternative would be a multiverse - but that is an extraordinary hypothesis for which there is no evidence. In fact the cosmologist Gia Dvali considers that the basic multiverse hypothesis is now excluded. The trouble with the line of argument you state is that it is always possible to doubt, and there is usually an ambiguity between wanting “evidence” and wanting “proof”. It is rarely possible to prove anything outside pure mathematics. You could try reading the book “Am I just my brain?” by Sharon Dirckx. Or my own book “Signposts to God”. Or try the many things William Lane Craig has written. But at least consider the arguments for both sides.
I will look for the books. It would be relieving to have some kind of evidence beyond God of the Gaps and Unlikely Coincidences. But ultimately my faith does not depend on evidence of any kind. Which is good for me because that’s where I am.
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
48
It’s not a matter… of physics. It’s a matter of logic. The infinite, eternal multiverse is an absolute certainty. And reality self tunes. There is no meaning to order.
It’s a matter… of declaration. The infinite, eternal multiverse is an absolute certainty… by words of mouth. There is meaning in the personhood of God, however.
Well it is indeed a matter of physics, and the hypothesis of a multiverse comes at the end of a chain of physics hypotheses which may or may not be true in fact. Logic only works on the basis of facts and assumptions. and if these are false or uncertain, so is the conclusion.