Article: Religion and Science

As you say, this is an extremely dense article. I'm sure I'm not grasping a great deal of it, and mostly I expect to be a fly on the wall on this thread.But one thing that you SEEM to be saying is that the complementarity you are supporting between religion and science leaves out "fundamentalists."In your discussion of your aims in the Proposed New Topics thread, you say: "Enlightenment Christians" don't see a conflict between religion and science, do they? It's Fundamentalist Christians who do. So what need is there to convince the first group of complementarity? I would suppose it's us fundies you'd think need the convincing, as nobody else in the religious community gives you the grief we do , yet you seem to be leaving us out of the mix. This, actually, is fine by me, if puzzling, fine because we have the truth, you see and if science contradicts it, there just IS no complementarity.This appears to be the relevant paragraph: *IF* I'm following this (which is far from certain, starting with not grasping what you mean by "transformed," but most especially when you get to your last sentence about "empirical" faith, where you've lost me completely), it appears to be quite a challenge, in fact an accusation. You are claiming that our insistence on the overarching sovereignty of God as revealed in the Bible, and refusal of everything that contradicts it, lead (inevitably?) to dishonesty. That's a pretty familiar accusation around here, actually, which you seem to be attempting to set in philosophical concrete.Where is the dishonesty in saying that as long as science goes on "proving" that Biblical revelation is wrong, we are holding out for science to get around to recognizing that it is wrong in those areas, and will not support any facets of science that continue in that direction? Seems quite honest and straightforward to me.

This could very quickly get way off topic so I'll try to rein in my response. Such a statement does give a person pause. Is there really doubt about our being tolerated "in society?" Unfortunately I know there is, and this way you put it underscores the threat, although I don't think you intend it that way. This is a HUGE topic. Bible-believers, with the exception of the few notable Deists, founded this nation. There were a hundred founders at least, men who were intimately involved with the framing of the new nation, and most of them were Bible-believers, not Deists -- but even Deism was just a watered-down Christianity, not another religion. Also, the majority of the population were Bible-believers, and the very IDEA of tolerance came out of American Calvinist Christianity, but it has come down to this now, that you would defend the nation we created against us. That IS the sad irony that we are facing, but it is off topic and I don't want to say any more about it. But perhaps I will try to explain how nevertheless. You are right, and it is generally the case, that their views are anathema to a YEC, when all the facts are laid out. However, they often argue from a position that a YEC can share on specific points, because although they have given up on the first few (11?) chapters of Genesis they do defend most of the rest of the Bible. Also, to the extent their testimony to Christ is credible, they are brothers and sisters in the Lord despite their rejection of parts of the Bible, and not to be treated as aliens. This is a very confusing set of statements that is going to need quite a bit of unpacking if I'm to get your point.First, I haven't noticed a particular tendency on the part of IDers to argue for the existence of God on empirical grounds. That seems to be something many of us attempt to do from time to time if we think we see evidence for God in nature and the possibility of making a case in terms an unbeliever might grasp.Second, I'm at least starting to get what you mean by "empirical faith," but I see no implication that one's own faith is grounded on such principles based on the attempt to argue from such a standpoint. My faith is grounded in the Biblical revelation, but I may find it intriguing to try to make a case for God based on natural observations. Others do a better job than I do however so I usually don't go in that direction.Third, in such an effort to persuade from empirical observation, not only is one's OWN faith not grounded on scientific priniciples, but the goal is not to establish a faith grounded on such principles either, but to lead a person from a recognition of the reality of God to the revelation of His nature that is given in scripture. Of course I'm not familiar with ALL such arguments, and there is a discouraging tendency for many who appear to be Christians to denigrate scripture as the basis for their belief, so if there is some ground for what you are saying you'd have to show it to me.The rest of your post appears to address your main concern, about the state of the world, and the role you think religion should play in an atmosphere of increasing uncertainty. Your way of casting the problem is unfamiliar to me and will need some thought, but I have to stop here for now anyway, though I'll try to consider it later.

It would help if you would spell out what you think a fundamentalist is, or who you think is a fundamentalist and how their views differ from other Bible believers. Technically, or historically speaking, there are few if any real fundamentalists around any more. That was a phenomenon of the early 20th century, after which came the evangelicals mid-century.I don't regard myself as a fundamentalist but I accept the label in discussions like this just because at least it means Bible-believer, and makes a handy contrast with "liberal" Christians who reject parts of the Bible or interpret it nontraditionally. In fact I identify more with the Puritans and Calvinists of colonial America (who had a lot to do with the framing of the new nation, but that's the always-endless topic that belongs on another thread). My favorite contemporary teachers tend to be Calvinists. I don't really identify with the high-profile Christians like Robertson and Falwell or even Billy Graham. So am I a fundy by your standards? Yes, I've made this point myself many times, that it was the persecution of minority sects by a government-aligned sect that led to the formulation of the political principle of religious tolerance, which was the work of English (John Owen) and American Calvinists, some of those very early colonials you distrust. What exactly is "my movement?"As for regarding people as brothers and sisters in Christ, that is strictly related to their having certain basic beliefs. It's an in-house thing you could say, and we may strongly disagree on political and scientific questions nevertheless. It is possible to be a Christian without knowing much as long as the basics are believed. I think if people get too far away from the implications of Genesis, such as original sin, the Fall, the institution of sacrifice for sin, the need for redemption, and too far away from traditional Bible exegesis in general, that it gets iffy whether they are really saved Christians or not, but if they profess the basics of faith in the nature and work of Christ and His death for their salvation I'm not going to argue the point too strenuously. This applies to those who allegorize parts of the Bible too, although I am in passionate disagreement with them about that.P.S. Thanks for the links on the previous post.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-20-2005 06:18 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 06-20-2005 06:22 AM

I guess I can answer your post generally by saying that by your standard I am a fundamentalist as I do read the scripture literally.I also don't yet see the danger you are trying to lay out about appealing to natural phenomena as proofs of God, though mostly I think it's ineffective.You cover many side issues in this post as well, which it seems to me belong in another thread and are likely to get into long drawn-out discussions, so I decided to leave them for now.

I looked over the list of signers on the A to E list and saw the usual collection of liberal churches -- many Episcopalian, Methodist, Unitarian, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian USA and Lutheran ELCA for instance.It is NO triumph of diplomacy to get liberal churches on your list. They ALREADY agree with you. There are conservative branches of some of those denominations which do not appear to be represented on that list.By the way, what do you think of my view, which I've brought up a few times at EvC in passing, that Creationist Christians should not battle with the public schools AT ALL, but simply quietly leave them, either for home schooling or to establish more Christian schools? Evolution is not going to go away and it is not good to be in this hostile battle about it. We simply need to go our separate ways.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-21-2005 10:36 PM

My idea is that Christian children should be taught evolution in GREAT depth ALONG with creationist belief, and especially the ability to criticize it all with precision. I know you can't imagine how that could be so but I can. But the questions involved can't really be tackled properly until later ages. What is really needed is more Christian universities as that is where these questions would start getting the thorough treatment I'm thinking of. I think we need to reestablish universities on the model of the Harvards and Yales as they were originally conceived -- as training for the Bible-believing clergy, not the liberal clergy and not the atheists.

Unlike the victims of some evo teachers, they would be graded on their understanding of the material, not their conclusion.

The practices of Satanism are against some of our laws. We don't need other laws in this case.Homeschoolers ARE regulated and have to meet state requirements. If they can pass the state tests that should be the limit of government tyranny in such questions it seems to me, but I know you would like it not to stop there.

The standards are regular academic standards that public schools also have to meet, I don't know the specifics. Certainly shouldn't affect Bible study.

If you hadn't allowed that GDR had a right to his opinion I wouldn't be so sure you were willing to allow that to anyone the way you talk. You are awfully certain that only your opinion is the truth and awfully friendly to the idea of dictating others' opinions with oppressive state power, and not only their opinions but their authority over their own children. You should start to suspect your tendencies toward totalitarianism.

The point is that it is none of your business or the state's business. Anyone who has a decent respect for the idea of liberty as a hard-won principle of Western institutions has to let people be people and stop trying to micromanage what they think, whether about the Old Testament or anything else. You are too sure of your right to impose your oh-so-absolutely-dogmatically-perfectly-right-and-true views on everyone else, just as every tyrant always has been.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-23-2005 12:17 PM

Oh I get it all right. It's that absolute dogmatic ARROGANT PIGHEADED certainty that evolution is a matter of 2+2=4 that makes you and Brian totalitarians on this issue. If I have to I will defend the right of parents to teach their children that 2+2=5 IF THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE. It is none of your business and none of the state's business to dictate such things.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-23-2005 12:34 PM

Yeah, there's the Doublespeak of the Big Brother Totalitarian right there. There's the way people's rights are taken away by the arrogant pigheaded promoters of absolute power over the citizenry.

You are the abuser, you are the twister of truth, you are the maker- up of accusations against innocent people, you are the oppressor.If you want me suspended for my posts about you on this topic I would remind you and all Admins that your posts against Bible believers and me personally are truly personal character assassination in a way that mine are not.Be that as it may, if I am suspended for my righteous fury at you, you and Crashfrog both should be suspended for your personal attacks on my character: My post on Brian's offensesWhere Crashfrog's personal remarks beginThis message has been edited by Faith, 06-23-2005 12:59 PM

Message 61: