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.
Thank you for your cogent replies and opinions. I've very much enjoyed this discussion.
-- spinestein
For it is on the same side of the slope as 1.5 million abortions yearly in the good, 'ol, USofA!
You do the math....
Kinda like 500 9/11's a year!
And we're upset at Islamofascists?? gimme a break!!!