Science, Religion, God – Let’s just be honest

Your whole post is simply about knocking down a strawman. Yes, there are fundamentalist Christians that insist on reading the Bible like a science text but that is hardly the only way of understanding the Bible.Here for example is a man who was one of the world's leading particle physicists who in his 40's took up theology. John Polkinghorne

quote:

---

The Rev Dr John Charlton Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS (born 16 October 1930) is an English theoretical physicist, theologian, writer, and Anglican priest. A prominent and leading voice explaining the relationship between science and religion, he was professor of Mathematical physics at the University of Cambridge from 1968 to 1979, when he resigned his chair to study for the priesthood, becoming an ordained Anglican priest in 1982. He served as the president of Queens' College, Cambridge from 1988 until 1996.

​

Polkinghorne is the author of five books on physics, and 26 on the relationship between science and religion; his publications include The Quantum World (1989), Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship (2005), Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion (2007), and Questions of Truth (2009).[1] The Polkinghorne Reader (edited by Thomas Jay Oord) provides key excerpts from Polkinghorne's most influential books. He was knighted in 1997 and in 2002 received the 1 million Templeton Prize, awarded for exceptional contributions to affirming life's spiritual dimension.

---

People like eminent biologist Francis Collins are committed Christians and at the same time have successfully advanced the study of biological science and are firm believers in the evolution of man.In my own view I simply look at science as a natural theology that informs us of what God has done. One of Collins' books is entitled the "Language of God" which is in reference to the study of DNA.I agree that "god did it" is never a scientific answer and that regardless of our religious beliefs we should continue to look for natural answers.Edited by GDR, : typo

We can't know what the right way is. It is a matter of faith and belief. In some ways though, not so different than science. However, I agree that ultimately people are hopeful that their unproven scientific beliefs will be proven to be correct.I recently read Brian Greens's book "The Hidden Reality". Much that he wrote about parallel universes that are in some way interconnected with our universe sounded almost theological in content.I look to science to inform me as to how the world we perceive evolved and how we can best make use of what we have and how we can best preserve it.I look to my faith to inform me of the nature of the God who I believe is responsible for our existence and to give me guidance of how I should live my life, realizing that I can't know that I am right in the same way that I can know what the speed of light is. I don't use my Christian faith to fill any scientific gaps. I don't use my Christian faith to answer scientific questions. I'm sure you believe all sorts of things that you can't know with unwavering certainty.I have two foundational beliefs. As a theist I believe that God is good, just and loving. As a Christian I believe that God resurrected Jesus on the first Easter in the same way that He plans for all creation at the end of time whenever that may be. Science can really only tell us that the resurrection is something that appears improbable as it is something we are unable to repeat. The Christian message is that is was a one time occurrence that can't be repeated within time. There is no conflict there and whether we believe it or not is a matter of faith.As a Christian there is no branch of science that I have any problem with.

You keep equating whatever Christian beliefs you once held with my beliefs. Where have I said that if one doesn't believe as I do that they are going to hell? Why are you wasting your time trying to convince others that your beliefs are correct? Don't we all try to convince others that our beliefs whether it be about politics, religion or who we believe will win the Super Bowl are correct. It is part of the human condition. There you go again knocking down the strawman you have set up. How about you give me a specific of where you think that my religious beliefs inform what should be a scientific conclusion or belief. Just because we have figured out the cause of lightning and understand it as a natural occurrence, tells us nothing about whether or not Zeus is responsible for the natural process that causes lightning. You continuously misrepresent my beliefs and attack the strawman that you set up in your OP. How about an example. I have a hunch you never were in my camp, as I assume that the position that you are attacking is the position you once held which is quite different than mine.

I am not trying to answer for jar but will try to deal with this from my perspective.As modernists we like straight forward clear cut answers to questions. As a result some Christians, instead of focusing their faith on Jesus focus it on the Bible, and look for answers by finding a couple of verses, (usually ones that give them the answer that they agrees with what they want to hear), and they are done.I contend the Bible is a narrative of the story of God reaching out through the hearts, minds and imaginations of His very imperfect people with it culminating in the life, death, resurrection and ascension of the imperfect embodiment of His Word in Jesus. The epistles then go on to flesh out Jesus' message and what God was doing and is doing through Jesus Christ.The Bible should be read through the lens of the message of Christ with the faith that God is good, wants goodness for us and wants us to reflect His goodness into the world. It is still done with faith however and not absolute knowledge.In the end it is about the heart. The question is about our basic nature about what and how we love. Are we lovers of ourselves above all else or are do we have hearts that love unselfishly and altruistically?If you are interested in my views there was a recent very lengthy thread on them. Here is a link to the first message in the thread. Message 1 It is too long to read the whole thread unless you have a great deal of time on your hands but you can get a bit of a feel for it by reading the first and last posts in the thread.

You continue to make your assertions that are just plain wrong. One of the foremost, if not the most foremost Christian scholar in the world, N T Wright often says in his talks that about third of what he says is wrong, with the problem being he doesn't know which third it is.I have adjusted my views many times and I am sure that I will again in the future as I continue to read, think, pray and observe.

Well no, the whole concept of Christianity began with Jesus the Christ and the Bible exists in its present form as a result of Him. The Bible is pretty clear, read John 1 that it is Jesus that is the "Word" of God incarnate. The Bible is the 'word" of God as told through the narrative of Him reaching out to mankind as told by imperfect humans.You like the fundamentalists seem to want clear answers to issues. Mankind's relationship with God isn't like that. It is ambiguous. In the end, as I have said, it is all about the heart and as Paul often says, in the end it is our hearts or motivations that will be judged, and not our beliefs, doctrines or even our actions. It is not by anyone's authority. It is my belief. It is my faith. It makes sense of my life and of the world as I perceive it. Do I know it to be true? No. Am I prepared to base my whole life on the truth of it? Yes. In a manner of speaking yes. Read the "Sermon on the Mount". Even just using those three chapters in Matthew, in which Jesus continuously quotes what we call the Old Testament we can understand what was of God as opposed to what came from human desires to try and conform God to their image and purposes. Does a God who tells you to love your enemy also tell you to commit genocide? No. Does a God who tells us to forgive time and time again command you to get together and stone your neighbour to death for picking up firewood on the Sabbath? No. It really isn't that hard. Your posts don't support that claim. There you go again by claiming to know what I want to believe. Interestingly enough people like Dawkins and Hitchens have agreed that they want to believe that there is no god as they find the idea very small and trivial, or words to that effect. You may not accept this but my beliefs are part of an ongoing search for truth as I can best understand it.You continue to impose your previous beliefs on others and then attack that position.

...as I've done in numerous threads over the years. You can look them up if you like. As I said, we aren't dealing with absolute knowledge. In the end everyone's worldview is based on their faith in something even if it is just in themselves. There you go again, imposing your understanding of the Bible on me. My point was that Jesus told us to love our enemy. The OT says that God tells us to love our enemies on one hand but that sometimes we are to commit genocide. Hardly compatible. In looking at it through the lens of what we have from Jesus it is clear that Yaweh would not have told His people to commit genocide which leaves us with two choices. Either they thought Yaweh was telling them to commit genocide and got it wrong or they claimed divine authority to jsutify what it was they were going to do anyway. (Personally, I'd be inclined to believe the latter.) This is the kind of patronizing claptrap that the majority of atheists on the board don't engage in. I understand the hubris behind the idea that as I got older I was way too clever to be drawn in by this nonsense. Actually, there are those more clever than you and I combined who have converted to Christianity well into their lives. If I KNEW, it would no longer be faith. As a Christian I'm prepared to question everything I believe, in much the same way that scientists question their knowledge. (Where would Einstein have been if he hadn't questioned absolute time and space?) You seem to be the only one with absolute knowledge. I have read and listened to both Dawkins and Hitchens fairly extensively and they are the first to admit that they don't KNOW that what they believe is correct.

Absolutely. If it is alright I'll answer this in a general sense without responding to the specifics.As I have said before, I have two absolutes with the first being that God as I worship Him, from a theistic POV is loving, just, merciful etc. If this isn't true and God is actually a god that commands that His followers commit genocide or public stonings then I'm not interested. I accept that God is good on faith.Secondly, my Christian faith hinges on the belief that the bodily resurrection of Jesus was an actual historical event. I think that the historical evidence for the resurrection is strong, but in the end we can choose to believe or not believe that the bodily resurrection actually happened. The Christian faith, IMHO, does not rely on an inerrant Bible, nor for that matter does it rely on a virgin conception. (That is not to say that the virgin conception didn't happen, but if it could somehow be proven that it was a legend that grew up subsequent to the resurrection it wouldn't really change anything. )I believe in the resurrection as a historical event and that becomes my starting point for my understanding of the Christian faith. The resurrection by God becomes the vindication of Christ's life and message. It vindicates the 1st chapter of John's Gospel which is essentially that Jesus embodied the "Word" or the "Logos" of God.You of course are right when you say that I can't know that to be true. However, it is my belief and I'm prepared rightly or wrongly to base my worldview on that belief and organize my life accordingly.How then do I understand the Bible. I understand the Bible as the narrative of God reaching out into the lives of fallible humans as told by fallible humans. It starts out with the inspired, (non-scientific) mythologies of creation, then through the story of Israel which culminates in the one true perfect Israelite which was Jesus. The epistles tell the story of the early church and how they were led and structured and then the narrative points dimly into the future with the message that in the end all things will be renewed. We are currently part of that narrative between the point where we see Jesus in His renewed resurrected body and the eventual renewal of all things.The Bible is a narrative of what various people thought as they struggled to know God and follow Him, although it is much more than that. It is an evolutionary story as God continues to reach out through human hearts, minds and imaginations. As I said earlier it is an ongoing story which continues today.As to how the old and new testaments relate to each other, I see it this way. In the reading the NT we can see that Jesus constantly referred HIs followers back to the Hebrew Scriptures as He obviously saw what He was doing as being a fulfillment of those Scriptures. At the same time though we can see that he did bring correction to some of the teachings. He said that instead of an eye for an eye that we are to forgive. Instead of what Moses told them about divorce that with the possible exception of infidelity they were to stick it out etc.I don't see any need for Jesus to have to specifically say, (although who knows, maybe He did and we just don't have a record of it), that the slaughter of the Canaanites was wrong. It is obvious from "The Sermon the Mount" alone that He would have condemned it.As to how we are to love our enemies in our own time is obviously a difficult question. I guess I see it as a starting point and then we go from there. I might say this though. After the first world war we forced Germany into signing a punitive treaty that eventually provided an atmosphere in which Hitler could rise to power and we had WW II. After WW II the allies, (primarily the US), reached out by establishing friendly relations and even help in rebuilding. We can see the results in our relations with Germany, Italy and Japan today. That would be one way to love our enemy. Jesus' view was that ultimately wars are won by changing hearts from hearts that hate to hearts that love. Battles may be won militarily, but wars are never won until hearts are changed. Edited by GDR, : typo

Here is how CS Lewis might partially respond to your question. It is from the book "Miracles".

quote:

---

My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.

---

I'm not sure that I would say that I read the various accounts of the resurrected Jesus as being literally true because there are obvious contradictions in the details. However, just as witnessess to a traffic accident will differ in the details they all agree that the accident happened.Without going into the details I have already gone over in other threads I contend that the argument for the bodily resurrection is considerable and I have never read any other argument that accounts for the rise of Christianity that I find to be reasonable. However, in the end it still does require faith or belief that God did resurrect Jesus.On the assumption that I am correct in that fundamental belief we can then look at what others have recorded of the words and life of Jesus, knowing that the writers of the NT all believed that Jesus had been resurrected giving them strong motivation to accurately preserve what Jesus taught. Through that lens we can then form our beliefs about the Bible, as well as what others have written or said, realizing that the narrative of God and His creation didn't come to an end 2000 years ago but is still ongoing and will continue into the future.The whole Christian story makes considerable sense of the world that I live in and even more so of my own life.I think we would all agree that we yearn for things like purpose, justice, and hope in our lives. It seems to me likely that as these yearnings seem to be a basic part of our nature that there is an ultimate answer. Atheism means that ultimately the sun will burn out, (or whatever else finishes life off prior to that), and there is no ultimate purpose. Atheism means that when someone who has lived enjoying the suffering of others and then dies have never faced justice, and will enjoy the same fate as someone who has live a life that found joy in the joy of others. Atheism means that there is no hope that there is life after our current existence that will provide purpose and justice for all.Christianity provides an answer to those yearnings. Of course it doesn't matter at all if it isn't true. If there is no god then it is totally irrelevant. I am only suggesting that the fact that we have these yearnings as part of our nature, then it seems reasonable to expect that there is an ultimate answer for them. It is my belief that Jesus Christ shows us what the answers are.Here is a quote from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.

quote:

---

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

---

Two points to make about this quote. The first is that what God wants of us is that we have our hearts that love unselfishly. It isn't a matter of giving intellectual assent to a specific doctrine nor is it a matter of going out and doing good deeds in order to please God. It is a matter of having hearts that genuinely find joy in the joy of others which isn't a conscious decision, but something that hopefully becomes a part of our nature as we bumble along through life.The second point that I would take in the quote from Corinthians is that we don't have absolute answers. There is considerable ambiguity in our beliefs. Ultimately Paul is saying that we should have faith - faith that God is good, just and loving and that His desire is that we reflect that goodness, justice and love into all of creation.

Sure. It is ancient mythology. The message that we can take from it is that God isn't about to give up on us. It is more than just the Biblical accounts. We know of numerous messianic wannabes from that era whose movements just died out when they were put to death even though that from a geopolitical POV they had accomplished much more than what Jesus had done. The resurrection IMHO gives the most plausible explanation for the early rise of Christianity. He refers to it in the same way that a preacher might refer to the Prodigal Son today to make a point. The same holds true for Adam. I suppose I'd have to know about the first century Jewish culture to comment but that is one verse and should be taken within the context of His entire message. Turning over tables in the Temple is not much of an act of violence.The passage from Matthew is obviously a metaphorical sword. He agreed however that His message was not going to bring peace to the Jews. There were living in a country occupied by the Romans. His message was that the Romans were there as the result of the evil in the world and that the weapon against evil is love. He was calling on them to love the Romans, turn the other cheek and go the extra mile. It is pretty obvious that this would turn neighbours and family against His followers. It has to be taken in context. Love God and neighbour as all the law is based on that. From Matthew 19

quote:

---

8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

---

My point is simply, as you seem to agree that part of our nature yearns for purpose justice and hope. As they are part of our nature it seems to me that it suggests that it suggests that the there is an answer or fulfillment of those yearnings. Hardly conclusive but food for thought. You only took a fragment of the sentence. I'm not. I'm only pointing out the ramifications if there is no god. Whether theistic or atheistic we should be looking for meaning in our lives now and working to improve the lot of our children. If it makes things better in a renewed creationthen we can look on it as a bonus. The first sentence is obviously true and the second is a statement of your beliefs. I guess it largely depends on what it is that we do to make our short lives happy and fulfilling.Edited by GDR, : typos

I understand the frustration as I feel exactly the same way in discussing my Christianity with non-Christians who have decided ahead of time what it is that I believe. (Just look at my discussion with the originator of this thread.)Largely I was using atheism to mean what I hear from people like Dawkins and Hitchens. I have recently been listening to a number of debates between those two and people like John Lennox.Dawkins and Hitchens seem pretty clear that they their belief is that after death there is simply oblivion. However, I get your point that it is conceivable that if there is no god, death, (at least as we perceive it), might not be the end. Mind you, I would still contend that if there is no god and that we have only mindless origins, then it is hard to believe that there would be an absolute standard on which an ultimate form of justice could be based.I assume that if I were to ask you what it is that you believe about what happens after death you would say that you don't know. I still maintain that if we are solely the result of mindless processes then it is hard to see us as teleological beings. Sure we can find meanings in our own lives in careers, kids etc but if the sun were to go supernova tomorrow what would any of it matter then?However, I get your point that disbelieving in the existence of a deity does not preclude some form of life after death but I do find find it hard to accept that going from there to the concept that there might be an ultimate purpose or justice when we look for an ultimate purpose or justice when all life as we know it has ceased to exist.

First off I am sorry that I haven't responded to all posts but I've been short of time and was also away from my computer for several days. My view as a Christian is that we are part of God's plan that ultimately this world will be renewed, and that the existence that comes out of that will be eternal and free of sorrow.That would be it in VERY broad brush strokes.

I didn't take it that way but apology accepted anyway. That sounds fair. Well sure but wouldn't that be God? Theistic religions are mankind's attempt to understand the nature of the entity that is responsible for our existence. We are limited in imagination so the only way that we can conceive this intelligence is anthropomorphically.Even as a Christian monotheist I accept that God may even be a collective intelligence with a consistent nature, but again as a Christian I believe that we have been given the understanding of that nature in the person of Jesus Christ. In addition of course I also believe that as part of that that we have been given a pointer through the fog so we can grasp the ultimate purpose for our lives. Well I don't know either but I do have my beliefs. Do you believe anything about what happens after death or are you content with simply saying I don't know and will wait to see what happens? I agree but I the idea of doing something meaningful that is intended for all to see to give it meaning or purpose is contrary to the Chriostian message. (See my signature.)I believe that somehow when God renews this world and "His Kingdom comes on Earth as it is in Heaven" that all of the loving and edifying things done by mankind will somehow be part of that new heaven and earth.My favourite Christian scholar N T Wright puts it something like this.He talks about a stone mason who has been told by the master stone mason to carve a brick in a particular shape, size and pattern. He has no idea why but he does it anyway. Some time later the master stone mason takes him to this beautiful new cathedral and way up there he is able to see his brick and how it fit in to this new beautiful creation. Unless I am missing your point the answer would be yes.

Essentially I agree but how do you differentiate then between an atheist and an agnostic? It seems to me that to just say we can't know whether god exists or not, (agnostic), is not the same as believing that there is no god, (atheist). However that does depend on the definition that is used for the term god. That is a bit like the opiate of the masses statement. When I look at my own life I'm not actually at all sure that I want perfect justice. (I'm much keener on seeing it applied to others than I am to myself.)I'm not so sure that it is a case of wanting ultimate justice but more a case of the belief that there should be. Yes, my religion does tell us that our lives here and what we do with them does ultimately manner, and that belief does fill a void but maybe it is because there is a void that needs to be and will be filled.