Christianity Is Jewish

Here Here!!!

Why do so many have such a hard time thinking God would work in the supernatural? I just dont get it. God is God!
 

I'm not really sure whether there's anything to debate on this post. CWV is asserting that, whatever the evidence in Creation, she prefers a literal and (ironically) scientific understanding of the mythical texts of the OT (where "mythical" doesn't mean "not historical" but "deal with issues of origins") to any contextual, analogical or poetic discussions. There's really nothing we can talk about in that case - you have explicitly excluded anything that we can say about how such texts should properly be read (but, hint, they weren't written in the Modernist era), or about how evidence in the world must affect how we read the texts, or about what a God who forces us to choose between faith and science would be like.

As for the premise that the article takes - that a supernatural God prevents naturalistic models of the world ever being true - I can only say that I disagree. The God presented in the Bible and the Church is one who created this world and called it good, so exercising our God-given eyes and minds in examining and trying to understand that world is a worthy endeavour, to be undertaken in the belief that even if we find something that is hard to understand or reconcile with our faith, we will find nothing that truly contradicts it. So, when science shows that God doesn't move the planets but that they obey natural laws, it doesn't ultimately shake our faith at all. Similarly, if science shows that God doesn't literally shape every creature with divine hands but that, instead, they owe their shape to molecules of DNA inherited from their parents, that needn't shake our faith. Nor should whether science indicates that inheritance is inaccurate and that species change in both small and large ways.

pax et bonum
 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I strongly suspect that most of the folks commenting on all this do not have advanced degrees in the relevant fields. Therefore their comments are derivative at best. They are quoting what they've been told by people whom they think that they have reason to have confidence in. In many cases the quote is third-hand at best.

For instance, take Pax et Bonum. Are you a PhD astronomer? How about an embryologist? If not, then you'll pardon me if I don't take your comments about the findings of science as definitive in these subjects. And, even if you are, see below; there are those with equally advanced degrees who might disagree with you in certain areas.

I have a bachelor's in biology, and an M.D. That barely qualifies me to speak on one aspect of the comments above: science has NOT shown that "God doesn't literally shape every creature with divine hands but that, instead, they owe their shape to molecules of DNA inherited from their parents". We have little idea of the mechanism by which DNA, to the extent that it does influence morphology, actually causes said morphology to occur. We know next to nothing about the triggers that cause one multipotent cell in a blastula to become an eye, another a kidney, etc. It is still quite possible that God literally does directly form us in the womb.

And, as always, God works through means. So, if the planets move according to natural laws and forces (which He put in place), it is just as accurate to say He moves them as to say that they move according to natural forces. That is NOT the same, however, as a mythological view of Genesis being the same as a historical view!

We must always remember that the vast bulk of people claiming to do science these days are atheists or might as well be ones. I prefer to get my opinions from those who take the Bible seriously. Among those, there are many with advanced degrees in the relevant fields who do NOT agree that the findings of science contradict a historical view of Genesis as a straightforward account. So the choice that Pax et Bonum claims that we have, taking Genesis literally and rejecting 'science', or taking it mythologically and accepting 'science', is not an exhaustive list of our options. The findings from the 'book of nature' are not as cut and dried as some would like to make out.

Doc
 

THank you so much for the thoughts, although i suppose i am a bit fainthearted for this, John. Likely my wilting at disagreement has to do with my two teen+ sons who like to beat me up emotionally, on a regular basis! Just took a beating this a.m. so took me awhile to muster up courage.
Doc, you are brilliant and I am so glad you came by again. Do you have a site I could visit? I looked for a very long time last time cause a blank profile came up for your signature. One thing i have is determination, even when all seems futile! ; )
 

Doc,
Pax et Bonum. Are you a PhD astronomer? How about an embryologist? If not, then you'll pardon me if I don't take your comments about the findings of science as definitive in these subjects

Well, for what it's worth, I have a degree in Natural Sciences from the University of Cambridge and a PhD from the same (in bacterial molecular genetics). My job is as a science editor, so I spend my life reading about (mostly biological) research.

I am also a committed Christian, and believe that there is no tension between the two. Certain Christian philosophies do have a problem with science, but I would suggest that, if our philosophy and experience are in disagreement, it is the philosophy that should be altered. Provided we keep our eyes fixed on Jesus we should not go too far wrong, even if we have to let go of a few long-cherished and comfortable ideas.

The danger is that frantically holding onto a theory when evidence mounts against it can actually lead us to grasp wrong ideas about God that we would have rejected at the start but that our desperation eventually lead us to accept - such, perhaps, as the idea that Creation is not good because it lies about who God is, or that God dictated the Bible directly (as Muslims and Mormons believe their scriptures were delivered).

there are those with equally advanced degrees who might disagree with you in certain areas.

Perfectly true, and I don't at all insist that everyone agree with me! However, when I see people who genuinely misunderstand the science (as in talk of "progress" or misunderstand the difference between the biological theory of evolution and certain humanistic philosophies that usurp its language) I do try to correct these misunderstandings. What I really object to, though, is people who propound complete nonsense (such as certain "objections" to evolution including an alleged total lack of evidence for it, or a lack of consensus, or that it breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (!)). Not talking about CWV, here, BTW - that stuff usually comes in comments.

science has NOT shown that "God doesn't literally shape every creature with divine hands but that, instead, they owe their shape to molecules of DNA inherited from their parents".

If you want to propound a God of the gaps, that's your privilege, but you must surely concede at least that our DNA has a huge role to play in defining how we turn out, from hair and eye colour to genetic diseases. We obviously lack a complete knowledge of how genes make up a human being's body (it's rather complex!) but we are gaining very good understandings of the inner workings of bacteria, viruses and even more complex creatures such as worms and flies.

The danger of your position is that, as scientific knowledge increases, the place for God becomes less and less, which is the sort of thing that strengthens the idea that science and religion are at odds with one another. And I don't believe for a second that they are. If God created this world and called it good then we can have nothing to fear from investigating that Creation.

the vast bulk of people claiming to do science these days are atheists or might as well be one

Actually, I rather doubt that that is true. Even in the USA, a large proportion of scientists profess a religion of one sort or another (most Christians). Another large proportion would be agnostic or "not sure". The true atheists are as rare among scientists as they are among the general population. It is true that many of the loudest voices among those who write "pop science" books are strident atheists but that's quite a different position.

the choice that Pax et Bonum claims that we have, taking Genesis literally and rejecting 'science', or taking it mythologically and accepting 'science', is not an exhaustive list of our options

(The name's John, BTW.)

I never claimed that these two positions were all there was. What I do say is that: (i) taking Genesis seriously is quite different to reading it as though it was a scientific historical document written from a 19th-century evangelical position; (ii) rejecting science is rejecting God's creation, and thus rejecting part of God's self-revelation; (iii) "mythological" does not mean "historically false" - "myth" is "history plus", not "unhistorical". That is, a myth is based on history but adds to it a whole host of extra layers of meaning about God, spirituality and the place of humanity in the universe. Most crucially, though, the point of myth is not to convey historical or scientific facts but to place humanity and divinity in context, to tell stories that resound with our culture and tell us who we are.

CWV
I do hope that I'm not giving you an emotional beating - that's certainly not my intention! I do prefer that we all think clearly and not accept falsehood, which is why I am sometimes rather emphatic. Apologies if it's too strong.

pax et bonum
 

just an fyi, The Christian carnival seems to have a wrong link to your post. It appears to be linked to http://reformedpolitics.com/

Great Post btw.
 

Thank you for the compliment, Wayne. It all evens out, hopefully. Even my sons will "even out" I suppose. I pray.
John, please know I appreciate your thoughts as well. What would be the point if we were all saying the same thing? (Have you ever wondered about Heaven? Randy Alcorn's take on it is, we will still be searching for Truth...interesting) My emotional state is absolutely my thing...not something you said too emphatically! Emphasis is awesome, passion is a gift...I tend to be emphatic as well ; ) No apology needed; it's me, not you! Please carry on freely! Most days, I love it! And you are right, we need to strive for Truth. Thank you.
 

CWV Warrior:

Thanks so much for your encouragement. Alas, no, I have no website, but anyone is free to email me at
jkleinmd@bellsouth.net

John (sorry 'bout misusing your nick!):
I respect your learning and experience, but I still don't know why I should not assume, based on what is written in the Bible, that:
God created the world in 6 24 hr days, including all of what we commonly term land animals on the 6th day plus man;
No new species have been formed since then, altho' we have lost some;
There was a worldwide flood;
There is no particular reason to think that the earth is billions or even millions of years old.

The only reason NOT to assume these things would be if the 'book of nature' clearly indicated otherwise. This is what is in contention.

While a great number of scientists may claim not to be atheists, a great number of them pursue their research assuming that God is not now and has not been in the past active in His creation. Yet, according to a plain-face text reading of the Bible, He actively and deliberately formed the various species. If He did do this, then using methodological naturalism to investigate the origin of the species would be as useless as using methodological naturalism to investigate the possibility of intelligent life in the universe. The premises of the researcher will rule out the possibility of interpreting the data so as to strate that the species were designed to be the way they are, and were formed in a single 24-hr day. Sure; I can see how it would be POSSIBLE to interpret the Bible so as to allow for the gradual and/or fits-and-starts evolution from a simple, presumably single-celled organism to the present-day variety of life; I just don't have remotely the necessary extra-Biblical reason to do so.

Doc
 

"While a great number of scientists may claim not to be atheists, a great number of them pursue their research assuming that God is not now and has not been in the past active in His creation"

Of course they do. As you yourself said in comments to another post on this blog, science is the study of natural laws, not their exceptions. Thus, in the course of their science, every scientist must "pursue their research as though God is not active", because science is the study of what happens when God is *not* interfering.

"according to a plain-face text reading of the Bible"

As I've said, though, such a "plain-face" reading of the Bible is actually missing the point! If you asked the writers of Genesis "Did God create species the exact way they are now?" (after you'd explained the concept of species to them, of course), their answer would be "Well, I suppose so (although cows and dogs do differ quite a lot, so perhaps not), but that's not the point - the point is that God made the creatures and Man named them, and that we are supposed to look after them!"

"The premises of the researcher will rule out the possibility of interpreting the data so as to strate that the species were designed to be the way they are, and were formed in a single 24-hr day"

But that's precisely the wrong way round! Until the 17th century, scientists *did* assume that the species were so designed. It was the evidence of change that broke that assumption - the evidence in the Creation that showed us that a literalist reading of Genesis had to be wrong (or that Creation was lying about what God did, and hence the God who created it was lying). That is, within a very short time of people trying to take Genesis as a scientific account, they saw that it simply couldn't be one. It was quite definitely not that all atheistic scientists woke up one day and thought "I know, let's just claim that everything evolved - that'll knock those Christians back on their heels. Who cares about evidence!"

"I can see how it would be POSSIBLE to interpret the Bible so as to allow for ... evolution"

Well, perhaps that's enough then. If you can accept that some of us believe in evolution for good and sufficient scientific and theological reasons, can we stop the silly mud slinging about belief in evolution springing from lack of thought, faith or education? Similarly, I don't insist that everyone believe in evolution, although I will try and correct people's misunderstandings about it.

pax et bonum