I am working hard at getting back into the regular habit of prayer and scripture meditation/study. With two young kids and two hours of commuting per day, I’d all but lost any meaningful time w/ God. However, my wife and I are both trying to support one another in getting time with God regularly.
My study tonight was 1John 1:5-10.
A. What God is Like
5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
It’s funny that John, the Apostle of love, or as Jesus called him, a son of thunder, would state THE message in this way – not a clear statement of the gospel as in John 3:16 – it seems in his old age he began waxing metaphoric, climaxing in this crazy visions of Revelation. Needless to say, this perspective on God and this summary of "the" message, is enlightening ;).
First, we see no yin and yang here. John is clear that there is NO darkness in God. This metaphor, however, is probably one of the best and most informative in scripture.
- Light is Revealing: To me, one of the most frightening things about God, and His presence, is that, when I am close to Him, my own sins are much clearer and less excusable. Paul speaks of being blinded, while John, in seeing an angel, whose glory and purity are only a shadow of God’s, said "I fell down as a dead man." When we see God as He is, not just intellectually, but experientially, our own self-deceptions, hidden angers and lusts, and petty pride and arrogance are painfully obvious. This is why it is good to experience God in private prayer and public preaching and worship – the light of His presence can drive our illusions about our own goodness to the hills. This is not because we enjoy feeling small or condemned, but because, seeing these putrefying things, we can forsake them and get closer to God immediately!
- Light is Purifying: I guess after revealing, purification is the next logical step. Just like prolonged exposure to sunlight can purify and bleach items, our prolonged exposure to God and His words can, of their own power, cleanse us. It’s hard to believe, but most of what we have to do in prayer is not work hard to cleanse ourselves, but work hard to expose ourselves to God’s truth and presence, and they purify and cleanse and change us. This pattern of active efforts in order to allow passive change is clearly seen in James 1:4, where James encourages us to *allow* patience to have it’s work in us – to not squirm out, but allow difficulty to form us.
- Light is Life-Giving: Many secularists love to pose the canard that faith is anti-science, and they love to trot out the Galileo affair, in which the Catholic church persecuted Galileo, supposedly for supporting the Copernican model of the universe. Of course, this is a liberal rewriting of what actually occurred, but what is true is that there were some theologians who believed that an Earth-centered galaxy was more theologically correct. In reality, they were probably the first humanists, putting man at the center of things instead of God ;). I’d say that a sun-centered universe is more appropriate, theologically speaking (hindsight is 20/20, I admit). Our own Sol is a perfect metaphor for God – giving life through warmth and energy, but also a consuming fire if you draw too close. And our solar system functions with it at the center.
The main reason, as we will see, that John is describing God this way is to highlight his purity, and by comparison, our own sinfulness. This gives rise to a problem – how to we bridge the gap? How do sinful humans walk with and enjoy a holy God? This is not merely a theological problem, but a practical one. John outlines two human errors in bridging this gap, and God’s solution for each.
B. Bringing God down to our level – "God doesn’t care about sin"
6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth
Many people claim to be Christians, or spiritual, but fail to acknowledge and forsake sin. Sure, they admit that we are all imperfect, but since that is the case, they feel no desire or need to forsake darkness in order to have fellowship with God. In fact, they will claim that they know God, yet often openly advocate sin, and live in it as if it is not that big a deal, as if God is not so sin-focused as bible thumpers would have you believe.
I admit, some bible thumpers are not only obnoxious, but noxious and poisonous, with their pathologic focus on sinfulness. As I have said elsewhere, man is both divine and fallen, and fundies are known to focus only on falleness. But let’s not make the opposite mistake of using the "nobody is perfect" excuse to continue in sin, when the scriptures are clear that such a perspective is not Christian.
- 2 Timothy 2:22 – Now flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.
- 2 Corinthians 7:10-11 – For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. For
see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also
what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what
longing, what zeal, what punishment! - James 2:14-17 – What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and
one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without
giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
My own experience was that, after I asked Jesus into my life, I instantly had a change of heart regarding purity in my own sex life, to the point where I wasn’t even comfortable kissing my girlfriend, much less sleeping with her. Being totally unchurched, and having yet to be indoctrinated into any kind of "holiness" doctrine, the mere presence of God in my life brought a desire for holiness automatically.
And that is the point John is making. The one who says he has fellowship with God yet continues in darkness and sin? Here’s John’s response to such "liars" (his words, not mine):
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship
with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all
sin.
If you are a true believer, you walk in the light – that means exposed, honest about your faults and sins, but not excusing them either. When we are open about our inner lives, and seeking to repent and walk on, that’s when we truly have fellowship. And we have the assurance that Jesus’ blood continues to cleanse us – i.e. we can keep seeking forgiveness. As John says later in this letter
- 1 John 2:1 – But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
C. Bringing Man Up to God’s Level – "There is no sin"
8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
So, the first group, who said that sin doesn’t really matter to God, and that we can have fellowship with Him without being concerned about what is holy or sinful? John calls them liars. This second group says something different – that man is not sinful, that this is just a negative religious construct used to guilt manipulate and control people. John calls this group self-deceived.
While the idea of our sinfulness and guilt most certainly is abused by unhealthy spiritual organizations, that doesn’t mean that there is not a truth to be found in that idea. If you want to walk with God, who is light, you have to deal with your sin problem. God? Holy. You and me? Sinful, and separated from God by our sin. This works similar to our human relationships. When we hurt or offend another person in relationships, offenses separate us until they are resolved. So it is with God – if we throw up offenses and sins in His face, we need to remove them through repentance just like in human relationships, because God is personal and real.
John continues his solution from above (really, the same one) – if we want to commune with a pure and holy God, we have to be in the light, and seek forgiveness for the sins that are revealed there:
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Confessing our sins, however, is not something we do to a priest – it is something we do to God AND to one another. James talks about this later in James 5:16 –
Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.
Lastly, John makes an interesting theological conclusion – if we say we have not sinned, we are basically calling God a liar, since He has said unequivocally that we are sinners.
D. Conclusion
God is light, John proclaims, "this is the message." He is repeating the gospel message, but he does so in a more symbolic format to help us grasp both God’s nature, and our own, and how despite the gap, we can enjoy God. But let us all take care to ourselves, that we really are walking with God, not just wearing a Christian label. We need to be in the habit of exposing our souls and lives to the truths of scripture AND to the manifest presence of God in private prayer and public worship, in order to be freed and cleansed from our sins, to be transformed inwardly, and to have real, honest, life-giving fellowship with God and one another.
I was originally going to tear into this post with comparisons of being touched by The Flying Spaghetti Monster and how being "touched by His noodly appendage" changed my views "regarding purity in my own sex life."
I got the sense though Seeker, from your writing, that you are sincere so I'll respect the main point I think you are trying to convey, which is about a sense of spirituality.
…help us grasp both God's nature, and our own, and how despite the gap, we can enjoy God.
We need to be in the habit of exposing our souls and lives to the truths…
…to be transformed inwardly, and to have real, honest, life-giving fellowship with God and one another.
I'll respond positively by offering an alternate perspective about God. Seeker, I too get a sense of spirituality when I contemplate some of the things going on in science today. For example, I watched this video about Parallel Universes and String Theory which helps explain everything in the universe. They are trying to expand the theory of gravity from Newton and Einstein. It was a spiritual experience contemplating the sheer enormity of these theories. The mind blowing thing about these theories is that they are mathematical! They are as verifiable as E=MC2. I thought we lived in a 4 dimensional world, but in reality there may be 11 dimensions! Simply amazing! If there is a God, I believe this is the best way to commune with Him: understanding His creation through science. If He exists of course :) :)
Thank you for your respect, I will return it. I think that the word "spiritual" is probably too imprecise a word here.
I totally agree that you can experience something *transcendent* when you experience nature or an elegant scientific understanding of nature, but the "spiritual" experience I am talking about is not transcendence, but a personal, inner, moral shift, accompanied by a palpable presence of a personal God. I'm not sure what one word could encapsulate this, but I think it is difference from the awe and wonder you experience with science. Certainly, transcendence and wonder are part of the spiritual experience, but they alone may not cause any moral renewal.
That was very interesting seeker. I totally agree that labeling one's self as a christian does not make one a christian in reality, unless you do what a christian would do by definition. And I think that can logically be applied to any and every label that a person can give to himself or herself.
And I don't know Cineaste, how you can not contemplate a creator in the mathematical formulas of physicists. (As an aside – I do not know how these theories have anything to do with morality at all.)
I can see how exciting it is, I love mathematical equations. I love watching scientists talk about/prove their theories.
But it does not disprove the Bible at all, rather makes me think science is finally getting close to discovering the truth of God. Although they definitely have many many centuries of study to go. Since they continually disprove the theories they come up with themselves. (as in – was particles, now strings. They are hard to keep up with, you have to admit)
If God is Light, is He wave or particle?
If God is Light, is He wave or particle?
ROFL! Both!
I definitely agree that the questions about gravity do not invalidate the theory of gravity. I found that part interesting, too. I have actually wondered about that myself (gravity's seeming weakness).
I also apply this to the Bible, however. If I see seeming holes or gaps, I simply need more study. But then I look on it as the best theory known to man. (My opinion is based on historic evidence, although definitely not the history of those who merely label themselves christians.)
I do not really like the whole "memetics" theory. I am of the personal opinion that you cannot classify thoughts and actions of those who have "free will" shall we say, with the natural actions of organisms. Although some of what he says is common sense in hiding, if you want to know my whole opinon. In other words, what he says is just the way culture works. As in – parents do "pass their knowledge on" to their children, just as they "pass on" certain genetic traits as well.
I just do not see at any time in history when murder was an approved action between human beings.
I definitely agree that the questions about gravity do not invalidate the theory of gravity.
Lawanda, creationists need to apply your logic (above) to Darwin's Theory of Evolution as well. Your position is strong and well founded. You've surpassed Seeker and Aaron here and they would do well to learn from you.
I just do not see at any time in history when murder was an approved action between human beings.
What about this?
Ahhh, yes. I suppose it was approved by SOME.
But was it right, even then? I believe they knew it was wrong, but who could stop them? They were the leaders. Same with Hitler. He was right within his own morals, too.
This is what morality is facing now too. I see things like this in our future, because quite frankly the IMmorality of it is not far off of the IMmorality of our culture today. (Think gang wars.)
And this is why people's loose "definitions" and anti-moral attitudes scare the heck out of me. (Because I have children, not because I am afraid I am going to be killed or hurt myself.)
Your position is strong and well founded. You've surpassed Seeker and Aaron here and they would do well to learn from you.
Now that I am done wiping the puke from the corners of my mouth, I will respond to your bait.
While the principle you espouse here is correct, there is another that you are ignoring. While gaps in a theory to not invalidate it, there is a reasonable threshold beyond which the preponderance of gaps makes a theory seriously doubtful.
I mean, if nearly every new piece of evidence requires you to seriously reformulate your assumptions and genealogical trees, and if there is a significant amount of data that contradicts your model (that is, you have to ignore or mis-interpret it in order to save your model), then your model is more than likely very wrong.
This is the argument that creationists make – not that evolution is a good model that adapts to new info, but a bad one that adapts because it must become increasingly more complex, admitting more and more "We don't know" gaps as time passes. But the complexity is not because of the complexity of nature itself, but because the theories are flawed and actually don't fit the data well.
Now, all of these points are arguable, and evolutionists, with their prior philosophical and religious commitment to evolution, most certainly do argue these points. But there they are.
So Lawanda, don't take Cin's evolutionary patronizing seriously – he is setting up his arguments to trap you into agreeing with him and seemingly disagree with yourself or others like me. He's a fart smeller, I mean a smart feller ;)
He's a fart smeller
Bah, Seeker you have found me out. Farts are God's little gift to man!
While gaps in a theory to not invalidate it, there is a reasonable threshold beyond which the preponderance of gaps makes a theory seriously doubtful.
Among scientists, Evolutionary Theory is just as solid as the Theory of Gravity. It is you creationists that want to instill doubt in people who don't know any better. People who listen to their pastor instead of their science teacher regarding evolution.
So Lawanda, don't take Cin's evolutionary patronizing seriously – he is setting up his arguments to trap you into agreeing with him and seemingly disagree with yourself or others like me.
The second part of Seeker's statement is true. I ask you though, please keep what you have agreed with (I definitely agree that the questions about gravity do not invalidate the theory of gravity) in mind the next time you hear a creationist telling you there are holes in evolutionary theory. Please make up your own mind about evolution. That is all I ask. Seeker, I think this is a moot point because Lawanda seems to be a creationist. I don't think she is "on the fence" so to speak, regarding science and religion. I pray I am wrong about that though.
Among scientists, Evolutionary Theory is just as solid as the Theory of Gravity.
While it is important to consider well what the "experts", in this case, scientists, think, there are some conditions under which experts, even a majority of experts, should be questioned. I'm sure you would agree that just because a majority of smart people believe something doesn't make it true.
The conditions that might warrant questioning the experts are:
1. If they might have an ulterior motive for holding their position, such as monetary gain, job security, fear of ostracism, significant career or personal ego investment in an idea or system, or philosophic/religious convictions that might bias them towards a position.
2. If the current system or model is poorly supported or contradicted by the facts. Often in established disciplines, group think can take over, and innovation and deep skepticism are stifled. But if the model seems to be of questionable worth in accommodating facts and prediction, it should be questioned regardless of what the majority agrees upon.
3. If another model challenges the current model and seems to be as good at accommodation and prediction.
I would say that all of these conditions are met in the case of evolution.
next time you hear a creationist telling you there are holes in evolutionary theory. Please make up your own mind about evolution.
The reason creationists bring this up is not to invalidate evolution based on gaps, but to dismantle the claim that evolution is proven beyond a doubt. It is often presented as having no gaps, no outstanding questions, and unassailable, scientifically speaking. This is the lie that creationists want to bring up – not that science definitively disproves evolution or proves creationism, but that there IS room for doubt, and there are reasons to believe that evolution is not on the firm foundation that evolutionists claim. There is plenty of room for doubt.
I doubt you could mathematically prove evolution to me Cineaste. Could you?
And yes, there are holes in evolutionary theory, but I also believe there is lack of evidence, personally. Or the evidence is greatly misinterpreted, as in such a case as our new “strings” which one day may be returned to “particles”. :)
And I think scientists have been HUGELY wrong before and they can and will be and have been on evolution, most definitely.
Because while I understand breeding, and how species can make changes due to environment,etc… I have NEVER seen any evidence that species change into different species. Which to me is the only part really that truly contradicts what God has told us in the Bible.
And you said, Scientists don’t presuppose a conclusion. I dont think true religion does either.
Which, btw you do contradict yourself when you say,
“People who listen to their pastor instead of their science teacher regarding evolution.”
You seem to preach evolution as fact an AWFUL LOT, Cineaste. I can take it as a theory, and I tell my kids it is a theory.
But then I think the Bible is fact, and just that science has yet to prove it thoroughly, and I tell my kids that too. So we are similar in a way. You just think you have more or better evidence than I do, even though mine is all historic and yours is rather pre-historic.
I doubt you could mathematically prove evolution to me Cineaste. Could you?
Evolution is Biology not Mathematics. Your point?
And yes, there are holes in evolutionary theory, but I also believe there is lack of evidence
Examples?
scientists have been HUGELY wrong before and they can and will be and have been on evolution, most definitely.
Why will they be wrong on evolution? Could it be, oh I don’t know, this is just a wild guess, faith in Genesis?
I don’t think true religion does either (presuppose a conclusion).
I realize it’s easy to miss this but the conclusion that religion presupposes is that God created species.
Which, btw you do contradict yourself when you say,
“People who listen to their pastor instead of their science teacher regarding evolution.”
No, not at all.
You seem to preach evolution as fact an AWFUL LOT, Cineaste. I can take it as a theory, and I tell my kids it is a theory.
Then to be consistent, you should teach them gravity too, is just a theory. This should drive home my point but something tells me you might still not understand that evolution and gravity, as theories go, are at least on par with each other. In fact, we know more about how evolution works than we do about gravity. I also preach that the world is round. About 100 years ago, creationists would not have believed that either.
But then I think the Koran is fact, and just that science has yet to prove it thoroughly, and I tell my kids that too.
I switched the word Bible and replaced it with Koran to make a point. Do you know what point I am making by doing this?
You just think you have more or better evidence than I do
No, I just think you are sadly ignorant and that you need a better education to lift you out of the religious indoctrination you received as a child. The problem is that you take the bible literally and nothing can contradict it. If I am wrong, tell me what correctly contradicts the bible?
I have NEVER seen any evidence that species change into different species.
Just a note, you are going to get into trouble using the word “species” like that – we certainly have seen speciation as narrowly defined by evolutionists – that is, two groups of the same species being separated, and over time becoming unable to interbreed. However, what you mean to say, I agree with. We never get a new kind of animal, not one more advanced or significantly different – say, a new class, order, or family.
What we do see, however, is that random mutation most often leads to death, and when it does not, it reverts back to a genetic mean because there are many repair mechanisms that are used to maintain the genome, and because the original design is actually better than what mutation causes.
Seeker, let Lawanda sink or swim with her own arguments. She is an adult. Can she support her own convictions with evidence and not just quoting the bible?
Lawanda, Seeker is right in trying to coach you though. Over the past year, we have both become well versed in this discussion and you may have too much ground to make up. Perhaps it's best we drop this until Seeker's next evolution post. I have a lot of ammunition from Richard Dawkins ready and waiting for you Seeker.
I'm telling you, you need your own blog!
The biggest argument against evolution is that it is so statistically improbable that we could have evolved from nothing. The problem with that argument is that it presupposes that we were an intended result of change. Evolution simply looks at what is and determines from whence it came as best it can, whereas creationism has decided that we are an intended result. It is natural that we see complex systems and assume that something even more complex must be the cause, but that is not always the case; as a matter of fact, the most complex things are usually the result of small, simple rules that generate drastic change. (I recommend A New Kind Of Science for a dry, scientific look at simple rules causing complexity, and The Tipping Point for a look at small change causing immense, sudden change.)
As is proven by the fact that not every sexual encounter (in which measures to prevent pregnancy are not taken) results in pregnancy, and every pregnancy does not result in a birth, we're an accident, each and every one of us. Get used to it.
Or put some belief system around it to explain it, if that helps you sleep better at night. It helped the ancients to cope with things like when and if it would rain, and how much if it did. Those things may seem silly to us now, but there was a time when it was blasphemous to say that men and women had the same number of ribs.
Or put some belief system around it to explain it, if that helps you sleep better at night.
Trying to explain away faith as a simple coping mechanism for those who don't like the apparent randomness of life is a nice patronizing position to take, but it basically demeans faith, which has positively transformed individuals and cultures for the better, and may be based upon a spiritual reality, not just a hoped for one.
whereas creationism has decided that we are an intended result.
To be accurate, creationism sees us as an intended origin, from which we have deteriorated and diversified.
And while Wolfram and the TP guy have some great ideas that you can extrapolate to try to explain what is often called 'specified complexity' by IDists, they are a long way off from proving evolution from a mathematical, scientific, or historical perspective, the latter of which relies not just on theory, but on data.
Cineaste, look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinformatics
I do not claim to be a scientist, btw. I do like math, however, and can see it everywhere in nature and history, even the Bible. ;)
I do know that Scientists have disproven themselves time and again and had to rewrite textbooks OVER AND OVER again.
And thus, the information you can get in a textbook is ALWAYS debatable. You say so yourself. (they do not presuppose anything!)
They HAVE been wrong on evolution. The existance of natural selection remains much the same as when first brought out, but the theories have changed many times over. They hypothesize and hypothesize until they think they have it correct, only to change it later – when they get more or different evidince, which usually means they misinterpretted the first evidence.
But what I don't understand is how you can embrace the CURRENT theories of evolution as CORRECT, when they will find more evidence later that will CHANGE it yet again.
They just recently began to change the theories of the magnetic field around the earth (the one that keeps the radiation and space debris from killing life)…along with all the other theories they change.
They are changing their theories of about gravity. Something we definitely know exists (like we know that some natrual selection exists), but obviously keep getting more evidence that changes the theory.
Like you are so keen to point out, science does not presuppose ANYTHING. So they cannot pre-suppose or even regular-suppose that they are currently correct about anything, because they do not know what evidence will show up in the future.
Do you know, that nowadays scientists say that red-haired people are descendants of Neaderthals? And yet, this cannot be agreed upon. They do not have enough evidence about it. But obviously they had enough evidence to suggest it.
So why do you presuppose that the current evidence will not be disproven in 10 years? And that the Neanderthal was not just a tribe of men who were just Homo sapiens with some different genetic traits? Is that not a possibility with future evidence? I believe it is not far reaching to "suppose" it although it hasnt been "proven" – yet. (And I see what you mean about species, seeker.)
But still….and this is important, because not everyone has your brains (or Richard Dawkins' way of using his brains) – not everyone is going to be able to understand the theories of evolutionary biology.
I have to admit that I do not understand it completely, not on the scientific level of people who study it as a way of life.
But you know what? I do understand it well enough to know that it will evolve itself until it isnt that same theory (theories) you embrace now, within a hundred years.
And yet, you base your "philosophical" – moral, I guess- views on it. Or do you? I am still trying to figure out where you get your "morals" from (and what they are.). You have said it is not science.
I am still struck by the fact that you think the Bible is a bad thing. Because frankly, when I read the Bible, I find a lot of wisdom. You brought up the Koran, and I think that is reasonable, because if I were brought up reading it, I would start with it.
I think it is perfectly sensible for a person to try to objectively look at their source of wisdom in connection with the world around them.
I have concluded (after reading other things – not just the Bible) that since the Bible is the oldest historic book of wisdom and religion that we can find, and is the basis of most other religions (although you'd say the opposite, because you interpret the evidence differently than me) that it is the facts, and I am going to look at everything from a Biblical perspective.
I cannot find many things in science that do not go along with the Bible. The theory that monkeys became men (or fish grew legs) after a few million years doesnt fit, however. But then again, I cannot really find where they have enough concrete evidence to support that entire theory anyhow. But I guess you can. And that proves the Bible is wrong to you.
And, having said I have been religiously indoctrinated, I would say to you that not everyone who is "indoctrinated" with christianity has stuck with the Bible. Were you indoctrinated with Bible learning as a child?
I was indoctrinated to an extent, just in the instance of being "brought up" – but I would say that I have been shown enough of other people's (scientist's and other religion's) work and theories that disagree with my parent's thoughts to where I can make an informed decision from my own life experiences, and observations.
Since you believe in creationism, please prove the existence of God. Or, if you prefer, prove that the Bible's account of creation is true.
Did you watch the video Cineaste provided?
Please show me the evidence that the branes (which according to the new theory, could have caused the big bang, from what I gathered) came from nothing or were caused by nothing.
And I would like the mathematical equations from which you garner YOUR proof.
Not that they'll do ME much good, not having studied it or worked with the equations, myself… But I am sure YOU understand them, with all their conclusions, perfectly.
I can see the work of a creator by the evidence that our ecosystem is so perfect that we havent fully understood it (and never will, imo), and that there are infinite possibilities of other universes. You scientifically dismiss this theory, because you interpret the evidence much differently (because you cannot concieve the idea of a creator.)
Your post is honest and heartfelt Lawanda and I will try to reply in kind to you.
Like you are so keen to point out, science does not presuppose ANYTHING. So they cannot pre-suppose or even regular-suppose that they are currently correct about anything, because they do not know what evidence will show up in the future.
First, I did not say, “science does not presuppose ANYTHING.” What I said was, “Scientists don’t presuppose a conclusion as religion does.” Your own words bear this out…
And you said, Scientists don’t presuppose a conclusion. I dont think true religion does either.
contrast with…
But then I think the Bible is fact, and just that science has yet to prove it thoroughly, and I tell my kids that too.
You START with the conclusion that the bible is a fact and science just has to prove it. Lawanda, this is you!
The difference between not presupposing ANYTHING and not presupposing a conclusion is that once scientists have established a conclusion, via the scientific method, it becomes accepted as fact. An example of this is heliocentric theory. Copernicus proved his theory that it was the Earth that orbits the Sun and not the other way around. Because he did this, scientists use this as a hard fact and no new evidence will change this fact, well, until the sun uses up all its hydrogen and turns into a red giant 4.5 billion years from now.
Another scientific assumption is that physical laws that work in one place in the universe will also work in other places in our universe. For example, scientists infer that if gravity works on the Earth and the Moon, then it must also work on planets in other galaxies. Now, no scientists have ever been to planets in other galaxies to confirm this, but based upon circumstantial evidence, scientists have concluded that there is gravity on all other planets as well. I can also conclude that you Lawanda, have a heart, even though I have never seen it. I don’t actually have to see your heart to know that you have one. This is the same principle used to debunk the creationist argument that, “We have not actually OBSERVED one kind of animal turning into another kind right before our eyes.” This kind of expectation to confirm evolution is as unreasonable as expecting someone to travel to the dark side of Pluto to confirm gravity works there also. Even then, we also have mountains of fossil evidence proving that animals change from one species to another over time. If you are truly interested in the evidence, I’ll be happy to show you. Seeker will no doubt try to discredit any fossil evidence pointing to this fact but I have so much of it, he can’t address it all. And even if he manages to point out a gap in evolutionary theory, as you have agreed, just because a scientific theory has small holes, like the theory of gravity, that does not necessarily invalidate it. The fossil record is JUST one aspect of the evidence for macro evolution. There is also paleontological evidence as well as genetic evidence. Even, Seeker admits evolution happens on a “kind” (species) level, like dog breeding. The only difference is, he does not take this to it’s logical conclusion, that if animals evolve within the Species level, then they also evolve in the Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Genus levels as well. The analogy is that Seeker thinks gravity only exists on Earth and not other planets. He wants the scientist to actually visit each planet to confirm.
But still….and this is important, because not everyone has your brains (or Richard Dawkins’ way of using his brains) – not everyone is going to be able to understand the theories of evolutionary biology.
I agree with you that this is a very important point! The fact is, I feel I have failed you. I have failed to explain evolution well enough to convince you that it is how life really works. I spend so much time and effort trying to convince fundamentalist Christians because I honestly feel truth can change their lives for the better, give then a wider view of the world and in the process, make them a little wiser. This is the goal of all teachers. But, I feel like Don Quixote. I do battle with the windmills of ignorance, not knowing or not accepting the fact that it’s a futile endeavor. Yet I fight on. The fact of the matter is, if your mind is already made up about evolution, I can’t change it. Only you can. Seeker wants me to prove evolution by filing in every little biological detail. I can’t. But consider this. I can’t mathematically prove the theory of gravity to you either. It’s beyond me too, yet I take gravity as fact just as I take evolution as fact. Its because there is just too much reasonable evidence for me to ignore gravity and evolution.
And yet, you base your “philosophical” – moral, I guess- views on it. Or do you? I am still trying to figure out where you get your “morals” from (and what they are.). You have said it is not science.
No, it’s not science. Philosophers have tried to answer this question for millennia and they still can’t agree. I’ll give you my personal answer, as one human being to another. I believe that all humans have empathy (1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.) I believe human empathy is the source of our morality. I believe empathy is in our DNA. So, morality is a our human capacity for reason working on this innate empathy we have. This is how we know what is right from what is wrong. This is my own idea though, I don’t know if others feel like this. There are people who have condemned me here for holding this belief.
I am still struck by the fact that you think the Bible is a bad thing. Because frankly, when I read the Bible, I find a lot of wisdom. You brought up the Koran, and I think that is reasonable, because if I were brought up reading it, I would start with it.
Lawanda, I do not believe the Bible is a bad thing. Before I visited this site I had never read, “The Sermon on the Mount” BTW, I owe Seeker a lot for showing me that. I do have an open mind and I think that what Jesus preached in that sermon epitomizes Christianity. I’ve always tried to live that way though, even never having read that sermon. But the bible also has a lot of verses that are just as ugly and horrible as verses in the Koran. If parents teach the word of the Koran or Bible literally as the absolute truth, then nothing can contradict these books. So what may actually be true, like evolution, is drowned out in the mind of the faithful because they are taught that their particular religious book is THE truth. This comedy video clearly makes this point. Lawanda, Seeker, the fact of the matter is, you are Atheists. You’re atheists regarding Allah, Zeus, Odin, Baal, Vishnu, etc. People like Richard Dawkins simply take it one God further and I believe that is not unreasonable.
I do know that Scientists have disproven themselves time and again and had to rewrite textbooks OVER AND OVER again.
I’ll make an analogy here. Just because scientists disagree with the particulars of a scientific theory does not mean that the entire theory has to be revamped. Creationists love to quote the great Stephen Jay Gould because he disagreed with Richard Dawkins about punctuated equilibrium. In fact, Aaron has made this same mistake. Here is what Gould said about this before he passed…
Essentially, these are disagreements within science about the particulars of a theory but they DO NOT disprove the theory. In Christianity it is possible to have serious theological debates. So much so that the religion might splinter like Protestants splitting away from Catholics. But you ALL still believe in God despite these little particulars right? You’re all still Christians despite the debate and disagreements. Do you understand what I am saying? The Protestant Reformation meant new traditions that were written down. You guys changed your documentation to reflect Luther’s teachings and textbooks change to reflect current science. Since Newton gravity has always been (1. the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth.) Since Darwin, evolution has always been (3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.) These core elements of these respective theories do not change. The belief of Christianity in Jesus does not change either.
I really tried to work hard on this post but I know in my heart, I’m doing no good here.
"Scientists don't presuppose a conclusion as religion does."
Actually, scientific creationism doesn't merely presuppose a conclusion. It proposes a conclusion based on a hypothesis and some first assumptions, and sets out to prove it, just like an evolutionist would.
You assume that origins come from descent with modification (your conclusion) and then believe it even if the evidence is incomplete or contradictory.
The fact that there are both young and old earth creationists proves that creationists are not just depending on their interpretation of the bible to force a conclusion.
I don't think evolutionists are even willing to consider that science might lead back to a first cause which we must call God, or that design is indicated, be it by God or aliens or spirit beings from another dimension.
Now, I am not being totally honest. Sure, many creationists believe in creation primarily because the bible tells them so. But that does not invalidate their science, it just makes is suspicious. Same with evolutionary believers. I know that many would believe in evolution no matter what the evidence indicated – they assume evolution is true regardless of the holes, no matter how significant.
My main point is that believers of both ilks are guilty of what you accuse creationists of, and that starting from first assumptions is not necessarily wrong in science, as long as you are willing to reconsider based on significant contrary evidence.
Just because scientists disagree with the particulars of a scientific theory does not mean that the entire theory has to be revamped.
See my previous point about when the number of problems with a theory become significant enough to question the entire theory. I think evolution is such a theory.
——————————————–
And you said, Scientists don't presuppose a conclusion. I dont think true religion does either.
contrast with…
But then I think the Bible is fact, and just that science has yet to prove it thoroughly, and I tell my kids that too.
You START with the conclusion that the bible is a fact and science just has to prove it. Lawanda, this is you!
——————————————–
I agree it does seem like I start with the conclusion. And I also agree I am prone to (seemingly, sometimes, in actuality sometimes too!) contradict myself, too. :-p And the cartoon is funny :)
I have in a way started with the Bible as my conclusion for the scientific theory of evolution. But really I have just taken my book which contains my "moral theories" I read in there, not with scientific theories, necessarily – and started from there. Being as morals are the first things you learn in this life, and the proving of theories comes later…
The things the Bible has to say about the world being created has not yet been scientifically proven. But, to me, it was written by God (who was there) and has no need to prove it. And it as a written work is not for the purpose of proving itself (although certain parts do prove other parts, imo)
Ok, before you jump all over that though… Think about this:
Before Einstein proved his theories, he most likely had ideas that lead him to beleive them, or he'd never had tried to prove them, right?
So really I am not starting with a conclusion to scientific theories, I am starting with the ideas I received from my study of the Bible. Like I said – I am starting with a book that guides me in my daily living practices and my spirituality. And I am taking the ideas put forth in that very ancient book and I am saying, if you worked on it long enough, you could probably scientifically prove it.
And as for my seeming contradiction about religious presupposition: I think it would have been more accurate for me to say that true religion does not presuppose that it is correct without the examining of itself and other religions first.
If that makes it worse (harder to understand), then let's just assume I did contradict myself, and forget it, please! :-p
And btw, I appreciate you sharing your "moral theories" with me :)
If I thought you would not shake them all down and make me feel like an idiot not worth speaking to anymore, I might share some of my "scientific theories" (really more like musings, as I do not have the brain capacity of actually theorizing and proving theories scientifically) about the "creation" as I fondly think of it ;)
Just pointing at nature and declaring over its complexity does not constitute proof. At least science attempts to produce reproducible experiments.
Just pointing at nature and declaring over its complexity does not constitute proof. At least science attempts to produce reproducible experiments.
I totally agree. That's why ID guys use the phrase "specified complexity" – i.e. complexity that is, at our current level of understanding, mathematically impossible. But I'm not that comfortable with this line of reasoning.
I much prefer the outright creationist stance, which says "this is our assumption about origins, now we want to investigate that hypothesis."
"Assumption"? Nothing can be assumed. All must be subject to proof. That's the problem with creationism: it cannot withstand scientific investigation because it rests on that which cannot be proven.
Nor, for that matter, disproven.
Dolphin May Have 'Remains' of Legs