Replies

[Yours is the divided response that many are offering, in a refusal to make a commitment to their position that is consistent. I understand you to be saying the Bible has some significance to you when it speaks of moral issues, but no significance when it speaks of historical issues as relating to the origin of the universe or living creatures, including mankind.]

Your perception is very close, but I want to be clear about my intention. I was offering an interpretation of "the divided response that many are offering" but that stance isn't mine. I've made my commitment to a consistent position which is based upon scientific methodology as a way to answer questions to my satisfaction, though I see a great many people who alternatively use both religious faith as well as science to understand their place in the world. They are in the majority among people I know and among those I talk to about philosophical matters and I notice a tendency among many or even most of them to be reluctant to admit that they use two very different methods of thinking at different times. I do completely understand though, the reasoning which leads those to accept literal creationism, and you state it very concisely in your last post:

[...the Bible is written primarily to show men (inclusive) the way to heaven, God does not depart from His ability to tell the truth when He caused inspired writers to record historical events. Jesus also adressed Biblical events and personages as historical fact/truth, such an Noah and the flood that destroyed all people with the exception of eight individuals. ... Jesus claimed to be the truth, and that the word of God was absolutely true, not just in "religious" matters.]

I'm mindful of the chastisement that the apostle, Thomas receives from Jesus after Thomas refuses to believe, without direct proof, the resurrection of Jesus even after he was told by Jesus ahead of time to expect it.

{{24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.}}

Jesus is telling him that it's virtuous to have faith in the word of God and that skepticism of God's word is a hindrance to truth and most Christians understand and accept this.

I'm think I'm going against the conventional wisdom on this (and I know I'm going against the main point of the article) when I say that this philosophy of faith is totally incompatible with the philosophy of science, a central part of which is the directive to NOT accept the word of any authority, that the word of God is meaningless by definition, and that the ONLY way to truth is through a process of rigorous methodological skepticism. In my opinion, it's why there exists such hostility between science and religion and also the reason why articles like this are written to try and paper over the differences, in support of various motivations, not all of them involving the pursuit of truth.

I suspect that you are as satisfied with your choice as I am with mine, though I admit it amuses me to see so many people like the author of this article try to do a balancing act between the two philosophies, wanting to have the best of both worlds. I'll probably make some enemies by saying so, but I don't think they're doing anything useful.

Thanks for the thoughtful, lucid response.

In my commitment to truth I try and fit everything I can into a unified circle of knowledge, understanding my limitations as a finite being. This is the classical meaning of having a philisophical viewpoint. Of course there are things I don't understand and ambiguities I have not reconciled. But I have to maintain integrity, or I am a hypocrite.

I believe Jesus is the truth, and He has definitely changed my life in a positive way (a subjective experience that does not make it necessarily invalid). However, if Jesus is the truth and speaks the truth I have to consider the world I live in, including the scientific realm and somehow fit it into my philosophical viewpoint, or "universal".

I think there is room to be a Bible believing Christian without rejecting "science" or the scientific method as a means of understanding the temporary phenomena of the world in which we live. If the Bible is true, the world as we know it will undergo a radical change at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (hence the word phenomena as opposed to "laws".). I think many in the "scientific realm" including the "founders" or "fathers" of science (Pascal, Newton, and others) who were/are men/women of faith were comfortable with a supernatural, transcendent God who could and did act above/beyond the "laws" of nature. However, they could study the creation of an orderly God and use this understanding of the laws/rules of creation in a way beneficial to mankind (theough creature comforts, medicine, etc.).

I do not think these individuals were/are comfortable with a "science" that contradicts or supplants the supernatural (God...and His revelation, which is how we know Him). The statements of "science" that cannot be reconciled with the statements of God (if truth is truth and if God speaks the truth) must be rejected, or God must be rejected (if truth is truth and science speaks the truth).

You wrote:

"I suspect that you are as satisfied with your choice as I am with mine, though I admit it amuses me to see so many people like the author of this article try to do a balancing act between the two philosophies, wanting to have the best of both worlds. I'll probably make some enemies by saying so, but I don't think they're doing anything useful."

I do respect your choice, and again, I appreciate your clarifications.

I agree that if two philosophies are incompatible, one or both of them must be wrong. I have not personally abandoned (as I think many "modern" men have) the search for a universal, or in my case growth in my understanding of what I believe to be the universal: The God of the Bible and His creation.