Posted by Bojee on February 03, 1999 at 04:55:46:
In Reply to: Dazed and confused posted by Carlos on February 01, 1999 at 20:57:59:
Carlos,
I apologize for my hypersensitivity. I overreacted. I am also a victim of infant-induced sleep deprivation, along with a rather manic \ depressive personality. That can be an unpleasant combination.
Look, all I was saying is: I believe that Jesus Christ is God. I believe that he created everything and still maintains the existence of everything. I think that it is beneficial for me to try to understand as much as I can about that Him and what He does. I’m not saying that you should believe in that, or accept anything that I say without putting it to the tests which your mind requires. My point is that science isn’t necessarily incompatible with faith in God. To me, they are two very different approaches to seeking truth.
I believe that the concept of "truth" is an integral part of the intellect of God. I believe that He desires to reveal that truth to us for our benefit. I think that if God does exist, we owe Him a hearing of the facts. I think that God has given some people, more so than other people, abilities which are useful for illuminating truth. I also think that God uses some people, regardless of their abilities, as "conduits", if you will, through which to impart information. God uses both those people who believe in Him, and those who don’t for those purposes.
I think that everyone has the potential to speak the truth; some people more accurately than others. When anyone is speaking the truth, insofar as he is actually speaking truth, he is, in a sense, revealing a part of the "mind" of God. If he departs, in any way, from the truth, he is no longer speaking God’s "word", concerning any subject. In that sense, a "pastor", for instance, can be teaching God’s truth in a limited sense, but depart from it when he moves into areas in which he has no expertise or authority, as in "creation science". The tests for confirming the validity of a person’s claim for divine inspiration all boil down to that: are they the truth?
Regardless, I believe that God does, in those ways, record information about Himself, in written form, as well as in other forms. As repositories of information, some forms are more accurate than others. I think that the information that God recorded himself, in the act of "creation", without the potential distortion of imperfect intermediaries, must be assumed to be the most accurate. I conclude that the "information" which exists in the "real" universe, has to fall into that category. I mean, doesn’t it seem likely that, if there is a creator, one would be able to derive information about him from his expression of his thoughts in the creation? I think that makes sense.
I think that the problem occurs in our perception of that reality; it’s often found to be in error. Also, if you discount even the possibility of learning about God, you probably won’t. I believe that we are, however, fulfilling God’s purpose in trying to objectively examine that reality. As far as other expressions of truth are concerned, I think that an objective comparison of their statements with the standard which has been set by "the hand of God" is necessary to reveal the degrees of accuracy contained in each. Again, there also exists the potential for human misunderstanding of each of those individual statements of "God’s Word". I don’t think that God is out to deceive, trick, or play games with us; rather, I think He wants us to use our minds.
I think that there are different aspects to God’s character, each of which has its optimal form of expression in humanly understandable terms. Artistic expression, such as sculpture, may more readily express some aspects than other forms. Pure mathematics may be a superior form for revealing another aspect; verbal expression for still others, and so on. All that is necessary, for an evaluation of its veracity, is that it be consistent with the character of God, as revealed by the sum of all other expressions of truth.
I think that, if God exists, it behooves us to learn as much as we can about Him, as revealed in all potential forms. If that requires comparisons, evaluations, and discarding false and contradictory information, so what? We benefit from that in the long run. In the short term, it may mean that we argue and fight. If my method of seeking truth incites animosity from people who have other methods, it doesn’t necessarily follow from their perceptions that mine is false. I just have to try to justify my method, by comparing my information with the other known information about God and truth.. If it holds true, I have an accurate portrayal of the character of God and truth; if not, I don’t. If that makes me an apologist, so be it.
I think that it is honorable and appropriate to pursue the reconciliation of disparate sources of truth. That presumes that both sources do indeed reveal the truth. If the contradictions can be resolved, then they are both correct; if not, then only one, or neither is correct. As I recall the book "The Science of God" (it’s been over a year since I read it, and I gave it away), that was really the theme. The author used examples of misinterpretations of Genesis by current Christian teachers (when compared to the original Hebrew and the Talmudic commentaries) to point out some fallacies of so called Creation Science. It seems to me that he stepped on some scientific toes as well (hence the lousy reviews, I’m sure), in addition to offering some admittedly theoretical proposals in order to rectify some of the discrepancies between science and faith.
As I said in my initial post in this thread, I think that Schroeder, accomplishes that as well as, or better than any regarding the specific subject I attempted to explain. If Einstein’s Law of Relativity is true, and so far as anyone can tell, it is, then it can be used to explain the seeming contradiction between Genesis and the Big Bang. To me, the idea of being able to show how both the seven day Genesis account, and the 25 billion yr. Scientific estimation of the origin of the universe could be true at the same time, is very intriguing.
If you read the book, I think you’ll agree that Shroeder’s theory is very convincing, if you can put your prejudices on hold. Not having the book at hand, I did a lousy job explaining it (the summary in the review which you linked was much clearer). I could be wrong, and I didn’t say that I agreed with every theory in the book. I do think that, at the very least, it is thought provoking and well worth the time to read it.
Again, I apologize for my petulant "You’re not gonna have Boje to kick around anymore!" speech.
Boje