Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues Science and Christian TheismGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Science and Christian Theism | Login/Join |
Science and Christian Theism by Mark Bair I thought this was an excellent presentation of many of the ideas JB and others have presented through the years regarding teleology. | |||
|
Excellent reference, Brad. I note the anti-religious snobbery of the Yale law professor in the first paragraph.  One would think after all these years that anyone with more than five brain cells working would know that:1. faith and reason do not conflict; 2. science does not conflict with religion (fundamentalist theologies sometimes being an exception); 3. not all religion is fundamentalist; 4. science without values does nothing to improve the human condition; 5. religion is our traditional resource for humanizing values; etc. etc. That one has to explain all this again and again and again to certain segments of the culture--especially educated people who should know better!--just goes to show that this is really more about secular liberal arrogance than anything else. | ||||
|
Some interesting quotes in support of a designed universe: Response to Religious Naturalism. Another interesting article by Mark Bair. It's full of quotable quotes. Phil said: 6. For some reason, the supposed authority of either Sagan or the Bible notwithstanding, the world is inherently (perhaps intentionally) a riddle. Clear and decisive answers do not seem to be written in the sands of the universe. It's not that they couldn't be written there unambiguously by a Creator, or that the world couldn't be revealed by human reason to be completely natural and non-mystical. The world just seems to be, almost mischievously, set in between these extremes. | ||||
|
I'm wondering how the Creator could have unamibiguously demonstrated evidence of a spiritual realm in a material realm? I also wonder why this should be required for evidence of the spiritual to be considered valid? This seems as ludicrous as saying that we have to demonstrate a chemical equivalent of thought to ascertain whether anything like thought really exists. And yet, we certainly had many centuries of thinking going on before peptides were discovered.  If one does not recognize evidence of a spiritual realm in one's own spiritual nature, it will be especially difficult to connect the evolution of the universe with spirituality. Personally, I do not think it is possible to dialogue about this matter with people who have such little understanding of spirituality. If their own reflexive consciousness and their longings for meaning, happiness, transcendence, etc. do not convince them that they are more than just a material being, you can forget it; they're just rank materialists. Of course, they still have to explain why a.) there is something instead of nothing, and b.) why human beings should require such a complex consciousness if the only point is to survive and reproduce? If, OTOH, people do wonder about the mystery of their inner life, then perhaps they can see a connection between their unique human characteristics and a universe that has managed somehow to evolve a body/brain in which such a spiritual consciousness could find expression. | ||||
|
http://www.str.org/free/commen...science/handmadn.htm It's a good focus for me as I am presently about to get into The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav and The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra and I'm bound to wind up in a quantum state of confusion. mm <*))))))>< | ||||
|
- from the link posted by Michael, above - I'm not saying that you can't reach objectivity, but everything must be subjectively assessed in some fashion. So, just the fact that I have my personal opinions doesn't mean they're wrong. You can't just dismiss them as being mere subjective assessment. There you go!  Where the scientistic people really go wrong, imo, is in dismissing philosophy and theology as disciplines that can also approach the truth, though from a very different direction. To say that everything that can't be proven by science is merely subjective is naught but an assumption, overlooking many experiences where we actually do most surely perceive truth, beauty and goodness without empirical evidence to confirm our judgments. We know what we know through a variety of faculties, only one of which is the intellect. | ||||
|
Phil said: I'm wondering how the Creator could have unamibiguously demonstrated evidence of a spiritual realm in a material realm? If God created the world as a desire to share His love then it seems appropriate that this fact be written across the sky every day in a hundred different languages and tattooed on the moon if need be. But I would settle for a rather ingenious bit of sci-fi I read once. Two scientists, if I remember correctly, are calculating the value of pi to ever more decimal places. In the midst of doing so they discover a pattern in the numbers. (And I believe to this day, in real life, they have found no pattern or repeating sequences beyond mere chance.) At some point this pattern is recognized as a code that eventually is translated as "I am God. I made the universe." or something like that. | ||||
|
How about a God gene? I think we can already know that God created the world as a desire to share His love, but not as signs written on the moon and other external things. We need only look to the world religions to see how universal this spiritual intuition is. The old "flatlander" analogy comes to mind here. Imagine a two-dimensional universe created by a three-dimensional deity. What evidence for the deity would the flatlanders see? Everywhere they look, there are only two dimensions. It is not until they begin to awaken to something of a third dimension of perception within themselves that they begin to see new possibilities. - see http://www.fortunecity.com/ema...11/86/tourist4a.html | ||||
|
How about a God gene? I like the concept. As I've stated before, I think it's just as legitimate to say that we have receptors for God because spirituality exists (analogous to our optic systems existing because electromagnetism exists) as to say that religion developed as a way to stay optimistic and thus healthier. Nature (evolution, if you will) tends to be quite conservative in doling out resources. That's quite a complex and pervasive system to exist in the brain for nothing more than self-foolery. Surely there are more efficient means to deal with existential angst. And as many an atheist will tell you, they find beauty and serenity in the concept of THIS being all there is, so there's certainly no inherent need for our brains to develop vast self-deception systems. I think we can already know that God created the world as a desire to share His love, but not as signs written on the moon and other external things. We need only look to the world religions to see how universal this spiritual intuition is. Yes, it does seem spiritual intuition is universal. The points most people seem to agree on is that we don't see all that there is but are connected to that unseen world in some way and it is a world we draw important support from, if indirectly and mysteriously. Some have a personal God. Some have an impersonal force. I don't tend toward facile ego-building "I am God" notions of spirituality but neither, in the face of so much (I would say) preventable suffering (while still maintaining adequate free will, much like a parent's restrictions over a child) can I ever be comfortable with a personal, loving God. To have made this world is incredible. To have made it with so much opportunity for love and joy is amazing. To have made it with what seems to be so much inevitable and horrible suffering is to hold someone to account for it. I think an unambiguous explanation would not only be the fair thing to do (and the least thing to expect) but would also decrease the amount of suffering since then we would all know the rules. If the goal is to share the love then why not? | ||||
|
To have made this world is incredible. To have made it with so much opportunity for love and joy is amazing. To have made it with what seems to be so much inevitable and horrible suffering is to hold someone to account for it. The "inevitable" part is what I don't follow. It wasn't inevitable . . . and its continuance isn't inevitable. It's consequential, and the ones responsible are human beings. The only thing God could be faulted with is giving human beings freedom and a conscious spiritual nature, for without those, there would be only sophisticated apes living by sophisticated instincts and perceptions. I think an unambiguous explanation would not only be the fair thing to do (and the least thing to expect) but would also decrease the amount of suffering since then we would all know the rules. If the goal is to share the love then why not? I'm not sure what would qualify as an "unambiguous explanation" for the suffering in this world. The doctrine of the Fall seems to answer most of the questions, I believe. And there's no doubting that the rules are there, spelled out in all the world religions. In addition (and from the Christian standpoint), God has entered fully into the human struggle and experienced the suffering and injustice full-force in the person of Jesus. That's as visible of sign of God's presence and care that we will ever get in our limited field of knowledge and perception. What else would you recommend God do? Hmm. . . Maybe Jesus could rise from the dead and show us that suffering doesn't have the last word. Now there's an idea! | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Spirituality Issues Science and Christian Theism