What divides Christians from "mainstream science"?

Faith & Science Conversation
21

@johnZ

Here are two similar definitions for the word holy from two different dictionaries.

  1. dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion - dictionary.reference.com
  1. devoted entirely to the deity or the work of the deity – a holy temple – holy prophets - merriam-webster.com

I’ll deal with only the second one here. A holy temple is holy because it is devoted entirely to the deity or the work of the deity. Similarly, the holy prophets are holy because they are devoted entirely to the deity or the work of the deity. In this same sense the Holy Spirit is Holy because it is devoted entirely to the deity or the work of the deity. Accordingly, we must answer the question—What is the work of the deity? The work of the deity is that which is just, that which is loving, that which is good, that which is kind, that which is merciful. Parents who are devoted entirely to the deity, or, to the work of the deity, will make sure that their children are taught that which is just, loving, good, kind, and merciful. In this way the Holy Spirit—the Spirit devoted entirely to the deity or the work of the deity is passed on to the children.

The apostle Paul explained it this way:

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law” (Galatians 5:22-23).

At times life can be difficult—some may have health issues, some financial problems, others may have family troubles, still others may experience all of the above. We grapple with these testing times and try hard to remain steadfast in our faith. Who is there that can say they are a perfect human being? There is none! As Christians we try hard to best fill the image of God that has been cast before us, and those of us who have children try to be good examples to our children so that they may fill that image the best that they can. The fruits of the Spirit bear witness that the Spirit we have is holy, therefore, this is why I call this Spirit holy.

Early childhood is the crucial period for instilling a good moral character in children. Sure, they will get into trouble, but good parents are always there for them. When the children of loving parents need love, or when they need discipline their parents are there. The balance of love and discipline is key. The scriptures exhort, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). Also, "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it (Proverbs 22: 6). Jesus said, “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit” (Mathew 7:17-18). I am aware that with these words the trees represent people and the fruit represent actions. This is also the case in the example of David, “And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper” (Psalm 1:3). However, my intuition tells me that there is a deeper hidden meaning in these words. What I see in these texts about the trees and the fruit is that the trees represent parents and the fruit represent children. This is simply because good parents cannot raise bad children, nor can bad parents raise good children. Therefore, by their fruit you will know them. Good children come from good parents, bad children come from bad parents. As the text states, "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit” (Matthew 7:16-17).

Therefore your questions—"How can unholy people create a holy spirit. What manner do they use to pass on this spirit that they created? Do they have to keep it holy or does it stay holy on its own? are questions that involve the patience, mercy, and love that people and societies at large have in their hearts for others who have had a less fortunate upbringing. However, when you think about it… and you don’t need to think about it too hard, the educated and the wealthy stay as far away from the problem as they can to keep their hands and the hands of their families clean. However, can you blame them for wanting to stay as far away from the cancer as they possibly can? It’s a very difficult balancing act indeed to keep your family safe and help those with a diseased soul (psyche)! They leave the hard work involving patience, mercy, forgiveness, and love to those who are already burdened with the weight of their own familial responsibilities. The educated, the wealthy, and the elite, have the private schools, the country clubs, the high society gatherings, and the extended vacations. But again… can you blame them? Nevertheless, the problem remains, and the solution still lies in the total overhaul and transformation of global economic system.

Jesus said:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.”

Therefore, the old saying—“you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” is true—to a certain extent. It all depends on how diseased the soul (psyche) actually is. So, how can unholy people create a holy spirit? They cannot. Unless they, who were lead astray to living an unrighteous life, already have the Holy Spirit to begin with, there is no way of creating the Holy Spirit. It is given as a gift of grace—from parents to their children. The prodigal son knows were his home is. What manner do they use to pass on this spirit that they created? Since they cannot create this spirit, they cannot pass it on. Instead they pass on and reinforce their own unholy spirit. Do they have to keep it holy or does it stay holy on its own? Well, since their spirit is unholy, there is no effort or struggle involved in keeping it holy. On the other hand, someone who was lead astray but already had the Holy Spirit to begin with and returns to the fold, daily effort and struggle is involved to keep their spirit holy and remain sane.

The apostle Paul gives us sound advice on how to remain strong in the Lord.

“Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;” (Ephesians 6: 10-18).

This comes as a surprise to me from an educated person who must surely be aware of the existence of Michelangelo’s fresco painting which forms part of the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling in the Apostolic Palace, the official residence of the Pope, in Vatican City. This image of God is “burned” in the minds of Christians everywhere. So your statement that, “I’ve never seen him, and I don’t know Christians who believe in this caricature,” is very difficult to take seriously. Especially, when you incriminate yourself (just an innocent expression) with statements such as this one you made in your post above in reply to me

If you see caricatures such as devils influencing psychopaths then it follows that you see caricatures such as “the white haired bearded man in the sky god” inspiring prophets. I believe that these imaginary caricatures ideally exist only in the mind. For the sake of realism we can make the statement—just as the Christ is God… the Antichrist is Satan. These real entities exist here on earth within our world.

It has already been explained that the imaginary caricature—“the white haired bearded man in the sky god”—of God is a delusion. Alternatively, the veracity of the “eternal animating force” God is real. It has also been explained, in an older post of mine, that the Spirit (the “eternal animating force”), as it has interpenetrated every part of nature, it has also interpenetrated mankind. Therefore, since Man is the most intellectually advanced expression of biological life, the Pure Spirit (the “eternal animating force”) within him expresses itself as God—Yahuwah (the higher self). Hence, those who do not believe in God still have God’s sustaining Spirit within them, and although they may not communicate with God as Christians and other religious people do their spirit may not be holy. Alternatively, if someone was raised by good parents who—through love and discipline—instilled the Holy Spirit within them as children, although they have taken a stand of unbelief of God does not change the good person that they are.

Since it is God’s Spirit that sustains all animate and inanimate matter there is no other spirit in this regard. God the “eternal animating force” interpenetrates and expresses Itself in every part of nature. It is in biological life where an alternate spirit emerges. This is where organisms struggle for survival and create competing expressions of themselves. It is within the favored environment of first life where cooperation amongst organisms is experienced that God’s Conscious Spirit comes alive. It is between different species and between different individual organisms within species where competition begins. At a higher level cooperation between species and individuals within species is where cooperation is further experienced and ecosystems flourish. And, at a higher level still is where different ecosystems on our planet cooperate within the whole global ecosystem. Man is where the Mind of God abides. Unfortunately, it is where the Mind of Satan also abides. A cataclysmic clash of intentions is ultimately in store for us—It is right at the door. The spirit of Satan is the spirit of antichrist which is the spirit of rapacious predation. He cannot, and therefore will not submit to God’s authority and abide in cooperation within the global ecosystem.

Where do I get my evidence for my thoughts? I inquire, I listen, and the thoughts proceed. When I question the thoughts, I listen more, and the evidence is provided. When we are thinking critically we claim or assume something. The claim and the thinking upon which it is based is subject to rational evaluation. When we do the evaluation we are thinking critically. Therefore, if the assumptions we hold are well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact they can be substantiated through further corroborated actual facts.

Well, yes, knowledge is passed on as a gift, but so is the Spirit. And although it is true that some have the knowledge, but not the Spirit, others have the knowledge and the Spirit. And since through knowledge and understanding one gains wisdom and insight visions of the past and the future become clear.

Since God is the energy that interpenetrates the material world the question is not valid. However, I understand what is that you are asking—therefore, no, God could not exist without the material world or energy.

22

Tony, wow, voluminous voluminosity of response! I can’t comment on all your responses; it becomes too much at once… But I guess two issues bother me, one being that you would suggest that people pass along the spirit as if the spirit was like an old coat, or a loaf of bread at the table. To me, and to scripture, the Holy Spirit is not subject to our whims and manipulations. Only one such thing is hinted at when scripture says, “Do not quench the Spirit.” Furthermore, we know that some have come to Christ without any spirit being “passed along” from parent to child. At the time of pentecost, it was merely preaching at a distance that gave knowledge, which the Spirit used to work in the hearts/minds of people. The Spirit is holy because it does not belong to people; people do not own the spirit, so it goes where it wills. The Spirit is God, and so is holy. He works in the hearts of men in spite of their unholiness.

The second thing is when you say that God could not exist without the material world, your statement contradicts both scripture and common sense. Scripture indicates God was there before the material world; he created it. Even the energy or light was created. Furthermore, the biggest problem with the Israelites and Canaanites in the old testament is that they were often worshipping nature, or gods made out of natural materials. If God was merely co-existant with material, why would God be so upset about that? Then also, scripture clearly indicates that God is spirit. Common sense also dictates that God is bigger than the material. This is why Moses could not look at God. Also, how could God create himself…? That God could use material, or even exhibit himself in material ways is obvious, as he became material man, and his presence even became spiritually visible to Moses. But God is not synonymous with the material, and therefore could indeed exist outside of the material. God’s presence in the hearts of people is not related to energy, nor to matter, but rather to spirit, which is something else entirely.

23

@johnZ

Hi John…

I’d like you to know that I haven’t taken offence that you have found my statement nonsensical. Instead I have taken your comment as suggesting that I should be more specific in choosing my words to clearly express my ideas. Although it’s not simple discussing these complicated issues online, I know it’s doable. I’ll attempt to offer further clarification.

My statement was;

I have since edited my original comment—it should have read [some] evolutionary creationists. My apologies.

You commented;

Since we obviously exist, how can anyone not believe in the origination/creation of the universe? Descartes’ famous statement, “I think, therefore I am,” suggests that since we are able to think, we can be sure of our existence. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi, Atheist—any person with the capacity to think is aware that his mother bore him. However… he still understands that the universe as a whole had its beginning with the Big Bang. Therefore, the atheist is aware that there was a beginning and that “something” caused the Big Bang. The theist is also aware that he exists, that his mother bore him, and that the universe began with the Big Bang. However, the difference with the theist is that he believes that “someone” caused the Big Bang.

So, here again, in this post, I will ask you, how can you say that you have never seen the “white haired bearded man in the sky god” and don’t know of any Christians who believe in him—since you, and many other Christians, believe that “someone” rather than “something” caused the Big Bang. Therefore, having further clarified I hope you can grasp what I’m getting at here—both atheist and theist is aware that there was an Originator/Creator of the universe. The atheist, on the one hand, calls that “something,” the “eternal animating force,” the theist, on the other hand, calls that “someone,” the “white haired bearded man in the sky god.” To be clear, my intentions are not to insult anyone, but only to create a vivid colored word picture of the “god” that religious people have been taught to believe in—this picture has been burned into their minds. I have struggled for a good part of my life trying to believe in this “god,” however, I was never able to accept the picture that Michelangelo painted.

Now… if we would rather elaborate that the Creator God evolves with the evolving creation it would necessarily suggest that at the onset of creation the Creator God was not fully what the Creator God would become at the end of creation. Since we have not as yet arrived at the end of creation, the Creator God is still evolving with the creation. Accordingly, as biological evolution implies—information and intelligence evolves from less intelligent basic organisms to more complex intelligent species. If this is the case, it would seem that the original hypothesis I proposed in that cosmological evolution, from the Big Bang onward, was purely a precursor materialistic deterministic process leading to biological evolution where, as we know, information and intelligence evolves from less organized basic organisms to more complex intelligent species. In this scenario, the “eternal animating force” fine tunes the universe for life, and since life is the determined outcome of the “eternal animating force,” the “eternal animating force” [is] God. God is immanent and interpenetrates every part of nature, but also evolves through biological evolution to become Man. This is why Jesus Christ is considered to be God—because the full potential of the Absolute (the eternal animating force) is expressed in Man. We view this original “self-awareness” of God as commencing with Adam (Man)—the Father of Homo sapiens, or at least, one branch of Homo sapiens. In due time, with the fall of Man, God’s plan for redemption was revealed to Moses. As the leader and representative of his people he enacted the covenant between God and the Hebrew people. The story of Abraham and Isaac was a precursor to illustrate God’s plan in sacrificing His Son Jesus for the sins of the Father—Adam. God’s Soul—His Being (the Higher Self), the Spirit, Personality, and Quintessence of God, reincarnated many times from Adam to Jesus. And reincarnated many more times from Jesus to the Messiah today. Three persons, same Spirit, Personality, and Quintessence. (The Adam I refer to here is not sinful fallen Adam, but rather Perfect Adam. Perfect Adam was the Father. Just as Perfect Jesus was the Son. And as Perfect will be the Third Person who is baptized with Holy Spirit).

Therefore, in answer to your question, [I am] changing the definition for the term—God. Why? Because this worldview makes full sense—in contrast to what has been purposely held obscure for millennia. Through this new picture of Christianity everything in the Old Testament and the New Testament harmoniously hold together. This worldview is also in agreement with fundamental scientific theory. Similarly, the definition for the term Atheism should also be redefined—this is what the term, the New Atheism would imply. It has been made clear enough already that theists and atheists both believe in a beginning—how can anyone not believe in a beginning? It has also been made clear that the principle tenets of panentheism—the concepts of eternity, and, immanence and transcendence—are in agreement with theistic doctrines of God. Thus, both theists and atheists agree on eternity, a beginning, and, immanence and transcendence. According to physical cosmologists the universe has an ultimate fate and will one day end. However, the energy and matter that comprises it is eternal and will be recycled (energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but only transformed from one form to another). The growing consensus among cosmologists that the universe is flat and will continue to expand forever only creates an infinite regress because if the universe will expand forever this suggests that it began from nothing (creatio ex nihilo). This is not possible because nothing comes from nothing. If we say that God created from nothing we are suggesting that God is the eternal nothingness. Instead it is more appropriate and makes more sense to say that God is the “eternal animating force” that transforms energy into matter and that God interpenetrates that matter.

The problem with atheism is not in regard to origins—it has correctly defined this aspect of reality. However, not accepting the historical Hebrew account of the beginning of the human family, its trials and errors, and God’s Plan for salvation [is] very problematic to say the least. Hence, my reference to “some” evolutionary creationists who are atheist—in that they don’t believe that the God who caused the Big Bang is “someone,” but is rather “something,” and although being atheist in that sense, are Christian because they believe in the historical Hebrew account of the beginning of the human family, its trial and errors, and God’s Plan for salvation. Accordingly, they are atheist in one sense, but theist in the other. The doctrine for these evolutionary creationists must necessarily be expressed in these terms since the old definition of atheism simply rejects God and Sacred Scripture altogether, and, alternatively, the old definition of theism upholds that “someone” created the universe from nothing (creatio ex nihilo). Accomodationism, concordism, and reconciliation of these important and pertinent concepts is crucial for philosophy’s aim of a unified view of the universe.

It is not only nature (the material world) that can be deceiving. People can also deceive other people—it happens all the time. The scriptures state, “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18). Thus, not even Jesus has seen God, although, he hath declared him." Many Christians believe that Jesus is God, however, has anyone ever considered who Jesus was praying to when He asked his disciples to watch over him, “Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder” (Matthew 26:36). Jesus, the man, was the Christ, the Messiah, God’s Chosen One. He, like Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the Prophets prayed to God (the Higher Self) for thanks, for strength, and for protection. We can call it the Higher Self, the Collective Unconscious, the “I”, the I Am—it is the God that Holy people pray to. This God exists only in the World of Mind. This is why the scriptures state that, “No man hath seen God at any time.” This is also why the Prophets and other Holy Men and Women of God received messages and visions through angels in dream and trance states. Here, in the World of Mind, through dreams and visions, God shape shifts and can present Himself as different characters, since, in the dream state, all the characters that we encounter are the same entity—the subconscious mind.

In the example of the stick in the glass of water, I had said that the stick represents God and the glass of water represents religion. I also said that if you try to see, or understand, who God is looking at him through religion you will see, or understand, him as being bent (not who He really is). The philosophic example is to demonstrate what a delusion is, not to prove that God exists only in the Mind. Although, if the delusion is removed one may find that God does only exist in the Mind. In philosophy, “being is a term that refers to anything that is, was, or can be. The most general thing that we can say about any object is that it has being. This means that the object exists or can be known in some way. A thought, or a memory, as well as a table, has being” (World Book Encyclopedia - Philosophy). In this sense, God has being, and has real identity. I understand your point that although the stick may appear bent, it is not. But, just like God—in religion He may appear bent, but in actuality, He is not. However, if you continue to see God through religion you will continue to see him as bent, although, He is not bent. Do you want to see God bent, or, do you want to see him straight (who He really is). I don’t know about you, John… but I don’t want to know who God mostly is—I want to know who He truly, really, and completely is. I believe that most people would want the same thing—God is not a commodity only for the educated privileged few. To end on this point, although God exists only in the Mind, He has real being, and has real identity in each and every one of us. God gives us our awareness of knowing what is right and wrong, just and true. The Messiah will come again, and although God exists only in the Mind, God is just as real to the Messiah.

In a general sense I totally agree with everything you have said here, John. However, we are discussing "What divides Christians from “mainstream science.” Roger began the thread with the main issues—design, teleology, and western dualism. I presented a structured hypothesis of what is actually at work in our universe. We are discussing absolute ideas in a maze of uncertainties and probabilities. One cannot make such a presentation and debate with others without invoking the structured framework of philosophical understanding concerning the main areas of consideration. Sure, at a basic level, the corner junky, the prostitute on the main, and the crack dealer all view the world the way you describe. However will this mode of thinking analyze and assess why these people sink to such a level in society, will it solve these problems, and prevent them from occurring again in the future? What about at the international and global level, can we trim down our views to these basics when discuss sensitive issues such as dictators marching their militaries across borders, terrorist groups slaughtering innocent children, or the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states?

Crime [is] a legal term, however, it [is] also scientific. Do you notice the term “science” in judicial science? Regret [is] scientific because it is emotional. Psychology deals with the emotions, and psychology is a science. Yes, to regret and repentance are both dependant on the same type of evidence—to show sorrow or remorse. Here is the dictionary definition for the term Regret; “to feel sorrow or remorse for (an act, fault, disappointment, etc.).” So I agree, to regret and repentance are both dependent on the same type of evidence. You asked," Is saying you repent the same as actually doing repentance?" However, I can turn your example around ask—is saying that you regret a certain action the same as actually regretting the action? This line of reasoning involves whether the action of regretting or repentance is sincere or not, not whether they have the same definition.

You said that devil and psychopath is not the same thing nor have the same meaning. However, this is the main central point!—Those behind religion have distorted reality.

It must be pointed out here, that just as God exists only in the mind, Satan also exists only in the mind. However, in this sense, just as God has being, and thus is real, Satan also has being, and thus is real. Remember, the spiritual realm is within us, not out there. (The only sense in which we can say that the spiritual realm is out there, is in the sense that other people are out there in the world who have a spiritual realm within themselves that is apart from our spiritual realm. However, when we start to get into eachother’s heads spiritual attacks can influence the well being of others. The devil, or rather, psychopath is well aware on how to intimidate and influence others).

This is the theological definition for devil;

(1) (sometimes initial capital letter) the supreme spirit of evil; Satan.
(2) a subordinate evil spirit at enmity with God, and having power to afflict humans both with bodily disease and with spiritual corruption.

Here are two secular definitions for the term devil;

(1) an atrociously wicked, cruel, or ill-tempered person.
(2) a person who is very clever, energetic, reckless, or mischievous.

These are the etymological origins for the term devil: Late Latin diabolus — Greek diábolos — literally, slanderer, slanderous, to assault someone’s character.

And here are four definitions for the term psychopath;

(1) a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, failure to learn from experience, etc.

(2) a person afflicted with a personality disorder characterized by a tendency to commit antisocial and sometimes violent acts and a failure to feel guilt for such acts Also called sociopath

(3) A person with an antisocial personality disorder, especially one manifested in perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior.

(4) A mentally unbalanced person who is inclined toward antisocial and criminal behavior.

The terms psychopath and sociopath are sometimes used interchangeably. In other instances the term sociopath is used for the more cleaver criminal mind who avoids putting himself in any danger for fear of being caught by the authorities. He usually plans out the crime and has the psychopath act it out. The psychopath is less intelligent and usually doesn’t have the means the sociopath has (authority and wealth) to be the one who directs the criminal activity. In other instances still, the terms primary psychopath, and secondary psychopath are used for the distinction of sociopath and psychopath. Understanding the mind of the sociopath and/or the psychopath is a different story altogether and moves the discussion into the area of understanding the principles of the personality and the relationship between the different aspects of the personality construct as outlined by Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. Briefly, this touches on disorders of the mind such as schizophrenia, bipolar disease, manic depression, and the forerunner personality disorders which set the stage for full blown out psychopathy, these are—antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, and narcissistic personality disorder etc.

The last and final point concerns your statement, “… a devil might influence a psychopath.” A devil is a psychopath. Look at it this way, just as God exists in the minds of normal people as the ideal personality to achieve, Satan exists in the minds of antisocial people as an ideal personality to achieve. A saint is a person who lives with the ideal of being Godlike, a devil is a person who lives with the ideal of being like Satan. If your friends, acquaintances, and coworkers are saint like you will be influenced (possessed) by God. If your friends, acquaintances, and coworkers are like devils you will be influenced (possessed) by Satan. Possession of the spirit implies influence of the personality. For example, we have all watched Hollywood movies with the good guys and the bad guys. Who did we idolize—the good guy, or, the bad guy? Whose spirit (personality) has becomes part of who we are? On the world stage we have the antichrist who is possessed by Satan and we have the Christ who is possessed by God. It comes down to who’s mark we have—do we have God’s mark of approval, or, do we have the mark of the beast, and God’s rejection. So the sociopath might influence the psychopath, or, the primary psychopath might influence the secondary psychopath. Only in this sense can a devil (sociopath) influence a psychopath.

With all this being said… let us never forget God’s gracious loving kindness, mercy, and forgiveness that He has shown upon us and those we love. May we continue to seek him and all his wisdom in all that we do that we may be called children of God.

24

Only a couple of comments, Tony. First, God is not the bearded white haired man in the sky, because God himself said not to create any images of him; no one knows what he looks like. We christians don’t worship pictures, not even Michelangelo’s imaginative pictures.

A devil might be a psychopath, but not all psychopaths are devils, although they may be influenced by one. Devils are real (demons), and are not to be equated to human beings.

Regret means you regret what you have done, what you must do, or what has happened to someone else. Repentance means you will not do it again.

Religion helps one to worship God. But it is scripture and Christ who helps us to see God, not religion.

You say that God exists and is real, but exists only in tthe mind. You do realize that this necessarily a contradiction. If I said that about you, what would you think? Would you be real, or would you merely be a fantasy on this message board? If I had a real dream, the dream would be real, but the events in it would not. So your mind is real, and the imaginings of your mind is a real imagining, but the imaginations are not themselves real.

I believe that God created me, and that I did not create God. Therefore God is more real than I am, and exists outside of my mind, outside of this world, and outside of the universe. When I did not exist, God did exist.

26

@Eddie

You and I have already discussed this issue Eddie, and you know that I include intelligent design as the means of evolution “once” the first life was formed. You’re also aware that my view of the evolutionary process is not based on purely neo-Darwinian mechanisms but includes epigenetics (environmental influences or other mechanisms). My central point in the comment your quoting was to establish that the Bacterial Flagellum was “not” designed fully assembled—as an example for the “first life.”

The Nova documentary, Judgment Day—Intelligent Design on Trial, presents the enactment of Behe’s testimony on the Bacterial Flagellum. At 1:06:52 Behe describes his definition of design, taken from his book Darwin’s Black Box—“What is ‘design’? Design is simply the purposeful arrangement of parts.” It’s well understood that the Intelligent Design Movement’s purpose is to attribute this purposeful arrangement of parts to the “first life.” I don’t agree with this perspective. At 1:07:18 the narrator describes how part of the defense strategy would be to show examples of how biological systems were too complex to have evolved by natural selection and therefore must have been the product of a designer. My quote you have issue with is at 1:09:00— “And according to Behe, if any one of these parts is missing from the system, the motor can’t function.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlTOuxJbhbA

28

@Eddie

I stand corrected and apologize for omitting the pertinent qualifications and for presenting any misrepresentation of Behe’s claims. I also understand that a NOVA documentary is no excuse for not reading the original transcripts of the trial. However, as I said, "My central point in the comment your quoting was to establish that the Bacterial Flagellum was “not” designed fully assembled—as an example for the “first life.” Nonetheless, the caveat on accurately presenting someone’s words has been well taken.

29

I believe there is a strong push from a small (but vocal) minority of Christians who feel threatened by science. I have written about the “wedge”, which is promoted by the Discovery Institute (and a corresponding push from a minority of scientists) on my blog about science and religion. I hope you will visit it at www.evidenceandbelief.wordpress.com.

30

Actually Mark, the title of this thread is a lie. (Its like asking you when did you stop beating your wife?) Christians are not divided from mainstream science; they use it everyday, whether it is computers, medicine, gmo foods, plant breeding, sterilization, modern automobiles, tvs, microwaves, telescopes, microscopes, MRIs, exrays, … I could go on and on. Some christians such as the amish may resist some forms of technology, mostly not because they are against science, but because they are against worldly control. Even Hutterites who are “other worldly”, and resist things like TV and automobiles and bright colors, still are quite happy to use modern combines and tractors. herbicides and fertilizers, plasma welders, modern milking systems, walk in freezers, balanced feed rations, etc. Perhaps the view of those who make this generalization is a rather narrow view of what mainstream science is?

For hundreds of years, scientists were convinced the universe was geocentric; they were the mainstream. The church followed the mainstream at that time. Both were wrong. However, at that time there was also no divide between christians and science; on geocentrism and germ theory they were both wrong. It is actually unscientific to dwell on the term mainstream science. Each topic stands on its own, and science cannot be generalized in this way.

32

I agree with you JohnZ, most Christians are in no way divided from science. Only a very small minority exhibit anti-science perspectives. However, even they are strongly situated in a science-endowed world and use it every day!

33

Eddie,
This is from the Discovery Institute’s link to I.D. “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection”. I do not doubt that I.D. proponents allow for old Earth and evolution. My concern with them is that they opt to include supernatural causes (e.g. an intelligent creator) in scientific (a.k.a. natural) explanations. This is what I say stifles inquiry. Once we move forward with an understanding that “certain features” are “best explained by an intelligent cause”, we give up on looking for natural processes. I’m not saying in any way that an intelligent creator could not have done the creating (even without natural mechanisms), only that in science, we should continue to search for natural causes. For the record, I have read original works and do not rely upon negative rebuttals.

34
36

Mark, I’m glad you acknowledge that virtually all Christians, including all perspectives on evolution/creation, are not divided from science. I am sad that you do not seem to recognize that even the small minority do not exhibit anti-science perspectives, but rather that your view of science is narrow. They tend to be anti one aspect or against one conclusion, not against science itself. It’s not just that they use science, but that when a new fuel is invented, or a better balanced nutrient diet is discovered, or a new virus is found, they do not generally dispute the discovery. Your anti-science phrase is actually an inaccurate adhominem, and if you are sincere in your truth seeking, you should stop using such a phrase, unless you actually hear someone say that they hate science or mistrust science generally (as opposed to mistrusting certain aspects of science in one particular field). They are not anti-science just because they happen to disagree with a consensus.

37

And since this adhominem anti-science slur bothers me, let me suggest something comparable, that those who are pro-abortion are anti-science, since they deny the individual humanity and personhood of the unborn. Those who are against GMOs and against herbicides, fungicides, and manufactured fertilizers (in otherwords, most organic food buyers) are anti-science, since they deny the science behind these scientific advancements. Anyone who makes broad generalizations such as “War on Science” (national geographic) is actually anti-science, since they have used an unscientific term or concept which is untested and most probably inaccurate. Yet, I would not say they are anti-science, since I do not think it is fair or accurate to apply such a generalization to one or two issues. But I do demand fairness in return.

38

JohnZ, you say that my view of science “is narrow” as if that is a bad thing. Instead, I feel that clearly delineating the “rules” of science ensures its credibility. I believe that science should rely on natural causes when explaining natural phenomena.

As to my use of the term “anti-science” regarding the minority of Christians who promote incorporating supernatural causes into scientific explanations (e.g. ID proponents), I stand by what I’ve said. I never such people as being anti-science regarding all issues, only point out that they hold anti-science perspectives (usually about a very few issues: origins, vaccines, climate change, etc.).

39

Mark, your view of science is not narrow because you want to limit it to natural causes. Your view is narrow because you don’t seem to appreciate the breadth of nature and the study and use of nature (which is science), and that it encompasses much more than one or two narrow issues. Thus, engineering is also science, and so is plant breeding, gmos, space ships, house building, musical scales and instruments, plant nutrients, animal diets, solar power, surgery, sterilization, vaccinations, … radio, tv., cell phones, gps, …the list is endless. When you say someone is anti-science you are implying that they are against all of these things. It is not legitimate for you to say that they hold anti-science perspectives; when you say that, you are not telling the truth. You are misleading. If you continue to stand by your generalization statement, then I will stand by my statement that you are not speaking truth.

Even recognizing the limitations of science, as ID proponents do, does not mean they are against science. Just because we recognize that Jesus and Lazarus rose from the dead, or that Jesus turned water into wine, does not mean that we are anti-science.