Some of my best thinking and articulation happens in response to challenges. I love being driven back to fundamental doctrines and Scriptures to scrutinise and consolidate my beliefs, and to then communicate this back to the conversant. An acquaintance recently challenged my response to another challenge of my faith in God as the Creator. Here’s how that conversation went, edited for readability and context of my responses.
I am unsure why you create a science vs creation argument as it only creates an “us” against “them” statement. History shows us that taking either of these sides shows a lack of our own innate intuitive wisdom. Science has its place – as does ones right to accept, refuse or discuss religious or ones spiritual or atheist belief. This constant banter is your strong view (and opinion) of the world and i fully accept that it all makes sense to you and the lens through which you personally view the world. It does not mean it is the “only right view” – as i like to see the world through a broader lens and respect ALL VIEWS so as to UNIFY us as a human species – not create a dualistic view. If there is a so called GOD, she would not want for us to squabble – hence why we should agree with living our lives through GOOD, not GOD (that idea tends to divide humanity – which is part of our own INSANITY). Hey – but this us just another view to ponder ….
Regarding the first assertion, “you create a science vs creation argument“.
I reject this primarily on the basis that I was responding to a challenge of facts thinly veiled in a rhetorical question, “Did you skip science?“
Secondly, I can point you to thousands of instances of scientists and academic institutions taking nothing less than a dogmatically aggressive posture towards Creationism or Intelligent Design.
Thirdly, I don’t oppose science. Any inference otherwise is simply wrong. I oppose scientism, the justification of a policy or philosophy on scientific authority alone. This leads to a ruling class of unelected, self-referring autocrats who belittle and eviscerate the validity of any disagreement.
This is perfectly demonstrated by clowns such as Kevin Rudd and Tim Flannery raping our economy on what they claimed was “irrefutable science”. Today’s headline says “We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC” (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
Of course, on the topic of worldviews, none is more confronting than the theories of origins. Clowns like Richard Dawkins categorically and absolutely condemn and vilify Christians for believing that God is able to not only exist in dimensions beyond our comprehension but also well able to reliably communicate with and relate to His Creation personally. Meanwhile, Dawkins also believes a little paedophilia has no lasting damage on victims, and that it’s quite possible life on earth was seeded by a superior alien race.
So on the basis of the ethical implications of Intelligent Design, and not the available evidence, people like Dawkins can categorically rule out the existence of God in any form, let alone as we know him – but has little trouble conceding the possibility of “other” extraterrestrial life.
I have absolutely no problem with science. In fact, the Word of God is full of it. The oldest book, Job, refers to international ocean currents, thousands of years before scientists did. Isaiah refers to the circle of the earth many centuries before the scientific community did. The inspired and inerrant Word of God breathed Truth into our understanding long before our own study and subsequent collective knowledge was capable of comprehending our universe in all its majesty and intricacy.
What I have a problem with is the lack of science posing as science. Professionals and academics ignoring the inescapable suggestions of the evidence on the basis of their bias and abandoning scientific methodology in doing so.
Charles Darwin himself wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – (Origin of Species, www.IdeaCenter.org)
And yet if something as simple as a mouse trap cannot work without ONE ingredient missing, how can the marvellous complexities of even a basic cell *exist*, let alone function, in a reduced complexity ancestor, let alone get more genetic information to increase functionality through random mutations? The principle of “irreducible complexity” strongly suggests that an Intelligence HAD to at least start off the universe with a great deal of complexity. For the record, Darwin had no technology capable of observing anything smaller than a basic cell.
And so my real problem is with the popular consensus of *people* that dismiss the very credible scientific theory of Intelligent Design out of hand as if to do so one must have skipped high school biology and instead equate such well-evidenced science to believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden.
So in summary to refuting your first assumption – I do not believe science opposes my faith. I believe it supports it. I believe that scientism opposes science.
“Science has its place – as does ones right to accept, refuse or discuss religious or ones spiritual or atheist belief…“
“It does not mean it is the “only right view” – as i like to see the world through a broader lens and respect ALL VIEWS so as to UNIFY us as a human species…“
Well that *sounds* wise and tickles relativistic ears, but imagine for a second that Truth is universal and constant; that wishing it so does not change the substance of truth, existence, and reality; that there are not as many iterations of the universe as there are people to imagine them into existence with some conjunction of cosmic coexistence.
Imagine instead that imagination and perception is like a beautiful Australian surf beach, and God is the Life Saver on duty. He carefully observes the rips and hazards, posts the conditions, and sets boundaries not to restrict, but to reveal where the most enjoyment and fulfillment is to be found.
Is it divisive to warn away from the hazards and require all to swim between the flags? As much as you might believe in subjective perceptions of safety outside the flags, away from God, and imagine you’re safe as close or as far away from the Life Saver as you please – true unity found is between the flags: the Life Saver’s expert and objective Truth. He alone is sufficiently capable and qualified to define and communicate Truth. He does not do so to divide, but to promote True enjoyment of the experience and existence.
And when we wander from between the flags, He is willing to lay down His life and come to rescue us. We just have to put up our hand, and get back in the water between the flags after receiving His breath of life.
But is He to blame if we die far from Him? Is it vindictive and punitive of the Life Saver if the swimmer goes down without raising their hand, after willfully ignoring all His warnings and clearly communicated revelations of Truth and purpose? Of course not. We are solely responsible and cannot ask the Life Saver to do any more after He has voluntarily done so much for people who are complete strangers to Him.
I submit that “a broader lens” is an endorsement of ignoring the flags, the Life Saver, and His posted warnings. It’s mislabelling it something warm and cozy like “enjoying the whole beach”, while it’s actually reckless endangerment of otherwise blissfully ignorant swimmers. I don’t intend to infer this is your intention. I acknowledge your best of intentions. But as someone swimming between the flags, it’s neither aggressive nor divisive nor arrogant for me to say in whatever tone effectively communicates the plea to consider your own position and safety and enjoyment. So, yes: it is the only right view. But not to my credit, rather, the Life Saviour’s.
You’re so close to Truth, but there’s no willing it into being something it’s not. Not the concrete barrier dividing the freeway, nor the nature of the Universe and our existence and origins.
“If there is a so called GOD, she would not want for us to squabble – hence why we should agree with living our lives through GOOD, not GOD (that idea tends to divide humanity – which is part of our own INSANITY).“
This last statement assumes facts not in evidence. How do you know what God wants, unless you also concede and assume that God is able to reveal infallible Truth to mere humans, His creations?
I agree that God is both able and willing, and point you to His Word – inspired, inerrant, and infallible – as is the nature of God, and Jesus Christ revealed as the Word made Flesh. It is baffling that people try so hard to find cosmic realities in the most intricate and imaginative ways and ignore even cynically dismiss the overwhelming evidence of the Authority of Scripture.
At the end of the day, unless referring to an objective constant Truth, all cosmological arguments are fallible, self-referenced authorities; in which case no one can stand in condemnation of even the darkest moments of human history. Everyone is right and no one is wrong, or everyone is wrong but no one knows how much.
The Truth is there are boundaries that are fixed and immovable by an objective and eternal intelligent Entity that communicates and seeks relationship with you and me. He’s not theory: He’s as real and personal as any other relationship I have, and I can introduce anyone if they can get past my clumsy communication and their own prejudices.
Our capacity for good is finite. The capacity (& nature) of God is infinite. I certainly agree to live my life through GOD, as He is Love, Grace, Truth, Justice, GOODNESS, Compassion, Righteousness, Mercy and so much more – the more of that there is in everyone’s life, the better everyone’s life will be.
Truth is, by definition, exclusive and divisive, as are the very noble and beneficial flags on the beach. Rejecting this inescapable reality is very unfortunate. Accepting it is very unifying and fulfilling.
I do appreciate the discourse, and I sincerely hope you appreciate my heart is sincerely concerned, not conceited – and that my confidence is founded in the very real and vibrant relationship I have with Christ, and most certainly not my self. <3