I finally realized something this morning. I realized that so much of what gets discussed on blogs is because people are talking about two different things.
I start from the place that God exists, that He is sovereign, that He is personal, that He wants us to be able to know things about Him and about His nature.
When I start from there I realize that certain things must be objectively true or objectively false.
God either created everything from nothing of He didn't.
God either gave us the Bible to communicate His truth or He didn't.
What the Bible records as history is either accurate or it isn't.
What I want to do is to do, as best I possibly can, is to align myself and my thinking with God's reality. I don't want to settle for "opinion" or" seems to be" or "feelings", I want to seek after the reality no matter what that ends up being.
If I'm going to err, I'm going to err on the side of giving God the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to try to impose my limits on God. It seems silly to say "I believe that God can do anything", but in the next breath announce "But, He didn't do....". Who are we to set limits on what God can or did do.
To me, it seems that the simplest least complicated answer is that God is capable of doing anything regardless of whether or not it makes sense to us.
I guess I will just never understand folks who are willing to settle for a God that makes sense to them. I guess I'll never understand that limited perspective that says God didn't do it that way.
I just want to seek after the God who spoke and the universe came into existence, yet the same God who knows everything about everyone and who provides humans the opportunity to relate with Him in an intimate and personal way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"To me, it seems that the simplest least complicated answer is that God is capable of doing anything regardless of whether or not it makes sense to us."
This is the crux of my position on the creation issue. As such, I see no reason to go any farther, except for perhaps an exercise in speculation. What I mean is that when asked, for example, if I really think God created all things in six literal days, I am more than happy to accept that He is absolutely capable, and am content to leave it at that. This is the Supreme Being we're talking about. Why couldn't He?
"But science says..." Science only says what it thinks it sees based on the methods and tools invented by imperfect human beings.
"But why would God purposely make us think it took longer?" Who said God did such a thing? Because it looks different to science, it means God is playing games? It doesn't or cannot mean that science isn't as smart as some obviously think it is? Science is omniscient and omnipotent?
Sorry. I worship God. I don't see reason compelling me to give that level of respect to science.
Dan,
Sorry, I have no time for incoherent off topic comments. If you wish to put forth the effort to comment on topic, please do so.
MA,
I agree with you on the creation issue. I have seen some pretty convincing work that supports a literal 6 day creation from people whom I respect. I have also seen some pretty convincing support for a "day age" position". Personally, I could be satisfied if either option were proven to be true. The bottom line is that God has the capability to create in any manner He so chooses and for anyone to try to limit His options because they don't make sense to me is just silly.
As for science, the problem is it's limits. To try to use a limited means to measure or explain something that is limitless is pointless. To try to limit the study of the creator to something within the limits of the created is also pointless. Despite what many would like to think/need to believe science cannot answer every question. The other problem modern science has (other than the flaws of the peer review system) is it's preconception to naturalism and it's bias against the supernatural. How seriously can something/someone be taken if they exclude possible answers from consideration based on preconception or bias?
As to why, I'm willing to leave that to God. Science can't measure "why" and when it tries to answer "why" questions it doesn't do well. I'm satisfied with knowing that God is sovereign.
I agree. I have no problem with science seeking to explain and understand how things work, how things came to be, etc. Indeed, that is what science has always been. But to assume it is omnipotent and/or omniscient is going too far and giving science far more credit than should be given to it or anything else.
I would slightly disagree with sciences role in how things came to be. I'm not sure that science is equipped to offer the same sort of insight on origins that it is one explaining what already exists. I would also stress that as long as science and scientists limit themselves to presuppositional naturalism, they are placing themselves on a position of having less credibility and less stature than they could have without basing everything from an unproven presupposition.
Of course, it's interesting how much credit science gets given how often it is wrong, how much of a role is played by politics and money, and how corrupt much of the structure of how things are done is. Not to mention how much faith is placed in things not supported by hard evidence.
I don't disagree with your response. I spoke under the assumption that nothing is off limits for a scientist seeking the truth. If something can be explained by natural means, so be it. If not, it doesn't mean that the supernatural can't be a possibility. I don't think, however, that science is equipped to prove the supernatural.
MA,
I agree that science can't prove a supernatural event by "scientific" means. My problems lie elsewhere.
1. The preconditional commitment to naturalism/materialism and the resultant exclusion of anything outside of those subjective boundaries as even being a possibility.
2. The assumption that if something can't be "proven" scientifically it can't be proven.
3. The double standard when it comes to other areas of "science" where there is no compunction in stating things as facts that cannot be proven as facts.
I think, and suspect you do to, that far to many people look to Science as a substitute for Religious faith.
For example. Just look at Dan's ridiculous commitment to "peer review" despite plenty of evidence that suggests that it is not what Dan believes it to be and his inability to provide data to counter the multiple studies categorizing the systemic failures in the process. Yet he clings to it because to let go would undermine his ability to place faith in Science.
Post a Comment