Musings of a Casual Observer

"And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord ... and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Corinthians 6:16-18 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:8

My Photo
Name:
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, United States

Friday, November 24, 2006

How concerned should we be about our credibility?

On November 20, 2006, USA Today had an op-ed piece entitled “When religion loses its credibility” by Oliver “Buzz” Thomas that started with the following text:

“Galileo was persecuted for revealing what we now know to be the truth regarding Earth’s place in our solar system. Today, the issue is homosexuality, and the persecution is not of one man but of millions. Will Christian leaders once again be on the wrong side of history?”

Of course, those of you who have read my posting on “The Galileo Affair” can imagine that this quote caught my attention initially for that reason. The ignorance of the facts that permeates popular culture regarding “The Galileo Affair” was not only reflected in this editorial, but it was also used to attempt to bludgeon Christians into reasoned submission on the issue of homosexuality.

The author purports to be a Christian ministers. He starts out stating that the Church lost credibility with the scientific community when it took a stand against Galileo’s heliocentric model of the Solar System.

Let me address this first: the Church’s loss of credibility was a fabrication of positivists and others who took up Galileo’s cause in order to promote their agenda to elevate science and reason over revelation, and to relegate religion to the irrelevant corners of superstition in society for the woefully ignorant and misled. The real problem with this is that Western Christianity gracefully conceded defeat to the apparent overwhelming intellectual prowess of science.

To make matters worse, Christians since then have struggled to make faith somehow intellectually sound to the scientific mind, accepting science as authoritative.[1] A catch phrase we see often in apologetics and the more intellectual circles of the Church is “reasons to believe” that are attempts to show that faith is actually quite rational.

Why are we wasting our time? Paul said,

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”[2]

And later he said,

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”[3]

In a conversation with a Christian acquaintance, he stated that everything regarding wisdom and foolishness in the first two chapters of 1 Corinthians is in reference to issues of salvation and not anything else. The first verse cited above would seem to refer to that indeed – that is if we take “the preaching of the cross” to refer only to Christ’s crucifixion and not issues of life, morality and our view of God and the universe. I think that’s a limited view of “the preaching of the cross,” but I’ll concede it here only for the sake of argument.

Then what about the second verse? Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. This would seem to broaden the scope of that which would seem to be foolish to those who walk after the ways of this world.

So, basically, I find a major flaw in the foundation of our thinking if we are trying to make the gospel and “the things of Spirit of God” palatable to the ungodly heart of mankind through reason. In trying to do this, we strip the gospel of its power and reduce it from an issue of faith to an issue of intellect. We are not saved by intellectual acquiescence. We are saved by faith and faith alone, at least as far as anything on our part.[4]

What happens if science really does “prove” that homosexuality is genetic and not simply behavioral? Thomas states the following:

“Religion’s only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.”

Do you see a flaw in this argument? We have nothing but moral authority that is based upon being “right” in the eyes of the world. If the world judges us foolish or wrong, we lose credibility, and credibility in the eyes of the world is essential. Loss of credibility means the end of Christ’s mission on earth.

According to Paul, we should already have lost credibility with the world – except among those who are saved or are being saved.[5] Clearly, if our loss of credibility is due to sin on our part, that’s a very different story. But if we hold out the truth as revealed by the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures, walking in the Light as He is in the Light,[6] and the world thinks us fools, then we should not be surprised,[7] nor should we be apologetic about it either.

I want to insert something very important here before I go on. Abuse of a homosexual, verbal or otherwise, is completely unacceptable for Christians. We must show them the love of Christ. The problem is that many of them insist that to do so requires that we also accept their lifestyle. This we cannot do. It is interesting that Jesus rarely had to confront an individual about his or her sin, except the Pharisees, and that quite harshly so, because they perverted God’s law and led many astray after them. Yet, not one of those people Jesus didn’t confront believed that his or her sin was acceptable in God’s sight. In coming to the love of God in Jesus, each of them recognized their sins as the Father saw them and repented of them all. This we must do as Jesus did, extending the love of Christ without compromising His standard of righteousness for ourselves first and then for all others.

That said, as to Galileo and the position of the earth in the universe, neither the geocentric nor the heliocentric view is based upon the revelation of God – see Origin of ideas - is there a problem?. In fact, the issue has little if any relevance for Christians at all, except as that view contributes to blinding men – Christians and non-Christians alike – from the our Father in Heaven, which has been the case. Will it be the same with the issue of homosexuality?

So, what happens if homosexuality turns out to be genetic and not simply behavioral, at least according to science? Will, as Thomas pleads for, the church change its stand and accept homosexuality as a morally valid alternative? Thomas tells us, correctly, that we did so regarding heliocentrism. Will the issue of homosexuality turn out to be the next great shame of the Church?

Thomas tries to give an argument from Scriptures that is a repeat of what many have said about being kind and not judging, etc., which I’ll not comment on here, except to say that his commentary is incomplete and flawed.

But he does raise a good question for us. Will we bow to science once again, in fear of losing our “moral authority” and “credibility”? Will we close up shop when we lose those because we can’t stand the shame of being wrong or looking like fools? Will we justify our compromise as being “for the sake of the Gospel,” as the Church has done so many times over the last 2000 years? The question may come down to this: will we stand by God’s revelation to us, regardless of the loss of credibility, or will we choose science’s determination and return to reinterpret the Scriptures to fit science as we have in so many other cases? This is being done regarding Creationism. Science is causing a bending of our will.

The problem that really confronts us foundationally is whether we will bow to science or bow to God. Francis Schaeffer believed that science and theology, if “adequately pursued” will not ultimately be in conflict.[8] Notice the caveat: “if both studies can be adequately pursued.” He doesn’t provide a definition of what he means, but I think it fair to say he is talking about both science and theology being pursued with intellectual honesty and no ulterior agenda. In actuality, isn’t God’s agenda the only one that counts? Can there be any other agenda which man can hold up to see if God’s telling the truth? (Isn’t this the attitude of rational approaches to faith?) Any other agenda than God’s, any other point of view than God’s must have an agenda contrary to His.

Schaeffer rightly raises the possibility that our understanding of theology, the Scriptures, is not correct. If we are going to take a hard stand in front of the world on some issue, we should make sure we have it right, or we will rightly be shown to be, not fools for Christ, but simply foolish. But I disagree with Schaeffer that science can be, or at least will be, “adequately pursued.”

So, we have a dilemma. We’d love to have a happy ending where science and theology agree at some point, and we can stand in front of the entire world with a completely rational argument that no one in his right mind can refute. In so doing, we do not appear to be fools, but they do, if they persist in their ignorance. But that’s not the way it’s going to happen. Science has a foundation that is pagan. It has an agenda that is at best atheistic if not pagan, as well. Rationality tries to set up a standard outside of God to see if He measures up to it, but the rules of rationality are rigged against Him. These things, I believe, will become apparent in future postings.

So, what do we do when science disagrees clearly with the revelation of the Scriptures? That’s our dilemma. We’d love for it not to happen, but it will. I believe that strongly. I also believe that it has, and the Church has compromised. How many times more will we compromise?

For now, let me ask this: are we willing to appear foolish to those who are lost? Can we, like Paul, say, “And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”[9] Are we ourselves looking to man’s wisdom, or are we looking to His Spirit to reveal to us the things of the Spirit?

“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”[10]

Until later,
Rob



[1] It actually started far earlier, but more on that in a later post.

[2] 1 Corinthians 1:18

[3] 1 Corinthians 2:14

[4] Ephesians 2:8, Hebrews 11:6

[5] 2 Corinthians 2:14-16

[6] 1 John 1:7

[7] John 15:18-22

[8] Schaeffer, Francis A., No Final Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975), p. 45.

[9] 1 Corinthians 2:4-5

[10] 1 Corinthians 2:12-14

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is an interesting post, Rob. I think you have raised a good point regarding what we might call religious epistemology (the study of how we know what we know).

The two biggest questions of science versus faith are these:

1) Where does our knowledge come from?

2) Is it justifiable to acquire knowledge from another sentient (and potentially fallible) being?

Regarding the first question, scientists would say that knowledge comes only from empirical observations. Regarding number two, the scientist would say that information gained from another sentient being is acceptable if and only if the information can be traced back to an empirical source. This is the (claimed) scientific method. It is the basis for all scientific inquiry and is the rationale behind the way scientific articles are published.

The person of faith, however, usually speaks of knowledge as that which is given to us by someone more knowledgeable than ourselves. The level of trust we have in the knowledge equates to the level of trust we have in the one who gives it. If the Bible comes from God, then regardless of what it says, we will trust it implicitly.

I would like to propose a middle ground in this debate. As I see it, we can bring both sides together by answering these two questions in a somewhat existential fashion:

1) Knowledge is gained through incrementally greater approximations of the truth.

2) Every experience, observation, revelation, and teaching from other people is allowed to contribute a suggestion of the truth.

3) The suggestions are weighed together according to the trustworthiness of the source to develop an approximation of the truth.

With these three points, the discussion between the scientist and the person of faith can be more fruitful as we begin to discuss our system of weighting. What right does the scientist have to weigh empirical observation over all other things? What right do we have as humans to think we can synthesize all the bits of information we have into some approximation of the truth?

Those discussions would be a lot more fruitful than the name calling that happens so often.

I'll make one more comment as well. I don't believe there are any hard inconsistencies between the claims of the Bible and the claims of science, and one of the claims of the Bible is that human beings were created in the image of God with the mandate to "subdue" the earth. Our ability to subdue the earth has depended on our ability to use scientific thought processes.

Therefore, I conclude that rational thinking is an exercise of the image of God so long as we realize that sin has damaged us and only God's revelation can fill in the missing pieces.

Thursday, December 21, 2006  
Blogger Rob Walsman said...

Jeff: I received your comments and have much to say but way too much to say it all here. I'd like to address parts of your suggestion in futures postings I hope you'll check in from time to time. Hopefully I'll post more often.

In your philosophy studies, did you ever take a philosophy of science course? Are you familiar with Hume's problem with inference, which includes scientific inference? Are you familiar with Aristotle's emphasis and frustration with demonstration and modern's science's abandonment of hope of demonstration? Are you familiar with positivism? It sounds very much like a part of your proposed compromise, yet it has been all but abandoned by philosophers and historians of science, and scientists are slowly coming around.

I do have a question why you chose "sentient being" as a possible source of knowledge/truth rather than men/women of different cultures and traditions? Does that include angels and demons? I just find that term an interesting choice that must have more meaning behind that I'm not clear on.

May I ask a few more questions?

Do you believe man, through science, can discern truth without the guidance of the Holy Spirit? In other words, can science alone apprehend truth?

Do you consider knowledge to be neutral – at least capable of being neutral? There is certainly the possibility of knowledge being purposely presented falsely, I think everyone would agree to that. Then again, what does "neutral knowledge" mean, anyhow?

What part does spiritual war play in all this – the battle between God's Kingdom and the kingdom of darkness? Is science somehow excluded from that battle because of its rational basis or some other reason?

Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to read and respond. I trust you had a blessed Christmas and will have an even more blessed new year.

Thanks again for you reply...
Rob

Thursday, December 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rob:

Thanks for your thoughtful questions. I'll try to respond briefly.

Why I used the term "sentient being"

You are correct that sentient being could refer to angels, demons, and in fact, anything that has the capacity to think rationally and have self awareness. That is exactly why I chose to use that term. I could have said "person" but that has connotations that tend to be more specific than what I was concerned with. My question #2 up above was whether it was justifiable for one rational entity to convey knowledge to another rational entity.

Can man discern truth without the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Regarding this, I would say "Yes, but." The problem with this question is that often the questioner has a bias that says, "Real truth cannot be apprehended by fallen man." To that I respond, "Humans were created free from sin with the capacity to apprehend truth."

In other words, humans, being made in the image of God have the capacity in themselves to understand the truth of the created world (this I see as a necessary part of the divine mandate to have dominion over the earth). The Genesis account does not, however, detail to what extent other forms of truth may be discerned without the direct revelation of God himself. Nevertheless, it appears that the image of God in humans allows for humans to fully understand the natural world around us.

The question for the theologically minded (and the philosophically skeptical as well) regards how damaged the human mind is in the aftermath of the Fall. I have my own feelings on this, but that's another debate. So to summarize my answer to your question, I believe that it is possible for the unaided human mind to gain knowledge of the material world and its operations. However, I also believe that despite that knowledge, man will not acknowledge the Creator, and will therefore never be able to understand the significance of the material world or the realities of the spiritual world without the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

In response to your final questions, I'm not sure what you mean by "neutral knowledge," and I feel that the the spiritual battle being fought is to blind people from the knowledge of God not to blind people from the knowledge of the earth.

Monday, January 01, 2007  
Blogger Rob Walsman said...

Jeff: Your comments are interesting and stimulating. I’ll continue my questions and add a couple of comments.

Let me first ask if you consider it possible that Satan and his minions might use knowledge of the material world to deceive or blind us to spiritual realities, giving our science interpretations to the data that then push God to the corners (deism), if not exclude Him altogether (atheism)? It’s the interpretations/philosophical implications that are most potentially harmful – not the data. Could it be that even the lies they tell could be proven under scientific investigation under the right circumstances or mindset? Or might they even reveal things to us that God never intended for us to know? There are many ancient stories of spirit beings (some say aliens) instructing men in the making of weapons and the waging of war, among other things.

Consider the Western worldview compared to Jesus’ day and that of the early Church. Casting out demons was not at all uncommon. Paul and Peter warn of the deception of the kingdom of darkness, and the aims and dangers of that kingdom. Yet, what place has any of this in the theology and practice of the Western church today? Were those interpretations of reality in their day just misunderstandings of the true nature of the world in which we live? If so, doesn’t that put the Scriptures in doubt? If not, what has pushed those realities aside for us today? Has not science had a major role in that? For example, even for Christians today, mental illness never is considered as being of demonic origin. We accept the interpretations of psychology/psychiatry. Physical illness never has any spiritual component (e.g. Gaderene demoniac, Lk 13:10-16 – spirit of infirmity, Satan bound her; Mk 9:25 – deaf/dumb spirit). Illnesses are merely physical and random, though perhaps sometimes psychologically based – e.g. stress.

Consider this progression. Science has given an explanation for certain phenomena which mankind once thought the work of God. Late Middle Ages and early Renaissance Christians then sought to understand how God did things. It wasn’t good enough an explanation to say that God did it. They sought to understand how. The next step excluded God from it altogether, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes and Newton being four who, per their own professions, didn’t want God excluded. Yet their thinking probably did the most – though not them alone – of any other individuals of their day and perhaps since in pushing Western thought in that direction.

So, what was God’s intent regarding subduing the earth? Can the “secret arts” of the magicians of Egypt used in duplicating the first few plagues (including the snake) of Moses be classified as merely having subdued principles of creation? Were they empowered by demons or was it a mix of demonic empowerment and physical principles? One well-known believer denies they were any more than parlor tricks – I can’t agree with that. On the other hand, might there be principles in African witchcraft that we can benefit from for modern medicine? Witchcraft succeeds sometimes when modern medicine fails. Why not dig in and learn what we can, even as Christians? Where do we draw the line? Aren’t all thing lawful for us? At what point does the “not expedient” part come in? (1 Cor 6:12)

From another perspective, why would we want to learn anything from demons, even if it could be supported by experimentation and the “scientific method”? Their objective is to deceive and destroy us (John 10:10, 1 Peter 5:8, Revelation 12:9, 20:3). Is there any reason to believe they’d set that aside in teaching us of the material world? Can any good come from giving them any audience? One might argue that they wouldn’t waste their time in instructing us regarding the material world. Yet our understanding of the material world comes from a variety of overtly occult, pagan and mystical sources. Could these be part of the “things taught by demons” of 1 Tim. 4:1 that Paul warns against? Is there any reason to believe they would limit themselves to religious/moral matters?

I think it would be hard to argue that philosophy and science are completely separate. While it can be said that much of science is technical nowadays, theoretical science is intensely philosophical – it has philosophical implications. So, the question is whether or not philosophy is “safe.” But then what of Colossians 2:8 and Paul’s warnings regarding the wisdom (sophia as in philosophia) of the world in 1 Corinthians 1-2? I think it can be argued that our view of God cannot be kept entirely separate from our view of the material world, as I’ve said above.

Regarding “neutral knowledge,” you mention a bias that the questioner has. That’s what I’m referring to. The question is: Can that bias be overcome by rational investigation and experimentation alone? Would not that bias influence the interpretation of the data and the conclusions drawn, making them seem valid? Certain observations are hard to deny, yet the interpretation is very much open to question. This gets close to the question of scientific realism, which is currently facing some real serious challenges. I hope to discuss it in a future post.

Regarding "Real truth cannot be apprehended by fallen man”: Some truth can be apprehended. I am sitting here typing on my computer. The Moon has craters, etc. But how would you incorporate Luke 24:45, John 16:13 and 1 Corinthians 2:14? I know some people would like to limit this to only matters of God, man and salvation, but is that so completely separate from all other knowledge as to be unaffected by that other knowledge? I think this might be where the debate really needs to take place.

My thinking is that there is a kingdom of deceivers who will use all available means, including science, to keep people from God. Man’s unaided rational capacities, certainly unregenerate man, are not capable of sifting the lies out of the truth, even with the scientific method – at least this is what I strongly suspect. We need the guidance of the Holy Spirit to arrive at “true truth,” to use a term of Francis Schaeffer. My posts to date have dealt more with a historical report with some interpretation on my part, but this debate cannot end until we answer the question, “What does the Bible say about this?” All the reasoning in the world is useless if we don’t find the answer to that question.

Thursday, February 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do You Have Kids

Avenge Me of My Adversary Stories from the New Testament That Mothers
Can Tell Their Children http://biblestory.spiritualideas.com/index.htm

Tuesday, February 20, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rob, I don't have much time to respond, because I'm scheduled to preach this Sunday, but I thought I'd give a few thoughts. I started typing it all up and soon was in the middle of an essay, so I've posted it over on my blog. Here's the link:

Angels, Demons, and Scientific Method

Friday, March 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I enjoy reading your posts when I think to, but I am a bit confused. Specifically, I can't figure out where your animosity towards science comes from. I agree that blind devotion to science at the expense of God is a problem, as you have eloquently explained, but this post, and your writing about Galileo in particular, seem to go further than that. I feel like you're suggesting humans should abandon all pursuit of observing and understanding the earth and the universe, and I fail to see how such an act would be glorifying to God. I believe knowledge of the world is ultimately revealed by God as He sees fit to allow, often through the work and minds of men. The parable of the talents comes to mind.

In short, I still fail to see what's wrong with knowing that the earth revolves around the sun. Was Newton wrong to ponder why the apple fell from the tree?
I know something can be awe-inspiring without any knowledge of how it works, but what about those who see the hand of God in the details?

Tuesday, April 17, 2007  
Blogger Rob Walsman said...

Ben: Thanks so much for your kind comments!

I can understand how my comments can come across as "animosity towards science." Actually, I've always been very interested in physics and math, and from 2001 to 2006, I took advanced courses in both subjects. It was when I was assisting a physics professor that I came across some things in the history of science that concerned me. As I've read lots of books and listened to over 50 hours of lectures, I've come to the conclusion for the time being that I cannot continue my studies in good conscience before God. Actually, it grieves me because it seems I'm so wired up for it.

There are aspects of science which aren't a concern to me. For example, a description of how a level works or macro aspects of the sciences - for lack of a better term. It's micro science - the exploration of the hidden world that cannot be observed directly and the effect of philosophical implications on the church that have changed our Christian worldview for the worse.

BTW, Solomon was a type of a scientist (1 Kings 4:33), yet he did it by the wisdom of God. Much of our science is done by the independent "wisdom" of this world.

My concern is how Christians have included pagan and occult thinking, methods and practices into science - syncretism. It seems to me that there is in some aspects the teachings of demons per 1 Timothy 4:1.

Kepler considered his work to be to the glory of God, yet he was heavily steeped in Pythagorean cult philosophy. Further, that thinking is a significant part of the foundation of mathematical physics. I can't go into it here, so I hope that you'll continue to read what I attempt to report and then decide for yourself.

Jeff asked me to explain how I believe the mission and health of the Church has been compromised as a result. I hope to post that here by week's end - at least the first installment.

Many thanks, Ben!
Rob

Tuesday, April 17, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home