Edwards second reply

Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:55:52 +0100
Subject: Re: Reaction to the letter for me

Hi Rob,

Thanks for your reaction. I find it peculiar that you'd even buy a bible to investigate it further. It's funny but I read the Statenvertaling daily because it requires more effort, it's more transparent and is a more literal translation. There's a lot to be said about biblical translations but I think I'll get back to it shortly.

I like communicating with you like this and would like to meet you in real life as well. Just drop by at Agapé where I am daily from 8 am to 3 pm. I notice it's hard to communicate with you because you start with different suppositions. I'd like explore that well with you.

I've noticed that you go along with me on many points but still cling to falsifiable but unfalsified theories. That's a nice statement but what do you mean with it? Actually with it you want to state that you're choosing theories which are possibly provable. But with what evidence? Is the world a closed system with cause and effect without external influence so every happening van be traced back via previous happenings to the original cause? You actually state it is (if I understood you well until now). Yet you agree with me that not everything can be 'reasonably' explained and that some 'divinity' must have started it all. Then first of all it's not a closed system anymore because the 'divinity' could interfere again at any time, but it also states a lot about the system. That's what we were talking about regarding the Watchmaker. The central question is then if we, and if so how, we can learn to know the Watchmaker. You claim yourself that this requires more than science yet it's hard for you to let go of science as an instrument. Even more, you're disturbed by people who try to seek the truth without using their intellect. I agree with you here. I'm disturbed by that as well. But you [should] understand that I'm disturbed as well by people who only want to use their intellect, who want to seek with their intellect but leave their soul and emotion behind. I tend to think you belong to the latter group although this discussion is a counter argument to that.

Maybe it's now a good idea to tell a bit more about myself since you ultimately asked about that. Indeed, I'm a civil engineer as well, at least, I have the title. After that education I continued studying so I never worked as an engineer. After the HTS¹ I went to Wageningen University to do a special MSc based education (Ir. in the Netherlands) which connected my technical background with social aspects. I specialized more on sociology and that's why I call myself a sociologist but actually I'm but half of one. With my PhD I hope to become more of a sociologist. Bottom line is that within myself I combine the technical and the social and that's the way I prefer it. This goes for my faith and for science. Philosophically I'm a critical realist. I want to see things as they are or as we can accept them that they are but I don't want to limit myself to three dimensions and that makes me a believer. You'll understand that I cannot elaborate on your question about the scientific determinations around the origin of the earth, but you're mostly interested in how I handle those determinations. Well, first I must confess that to me the faith provides more certainty than what science tells me. With that I'm not claiming to deny what is scientifically proven, I actually want to integrate that but for now I've decided on my priorities. It is after all my personal experience and that's why I know best what parts of it are subjective, psychological etc. and I can tell you that I'm critical to myself. But what God has given me is more than science will present to me so that's primary to me. My faith is therefor in the reliability of the bible as Gods word. And here I need to state some more. You state:

With science I only comment on the (Christian) faith where the manual of the faith makes claims about the scientifically observable.

Actually this statements leads me nowhere. With SCIENCE? What science? What is that science based upon? If we refer to our earlier discussion, you try to measure something with reason, if it fits within your system of reason but the question is if reason is the proper starting point. Later you state something similar:

If however stories about His revelation are told which do match the observations at all, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to doubt those stories.

First we need to ask if the manual and his revelation came to be within our closed system or by external interference. If it is the latter, why do you measure it with an instrument that denies it can say anything about what's outside of its system. That is unreasonable!

Does that mean that you, as you put it so cynically, just leave your mind behind? No. But you first have to open up for more than your mind can reasonably understand with cause and effect thinking ans after that see what you can understand with your mind ans what you can't. If you can express your faith clearly you're able to handle it mindfully and reasonably as well and that's what I want. But as I said before, my faith in divine inspiration of the bible takes precedence. Then I encounter difficulties that my mind can't grasp. You've already given a few examples. I can simply slide it under the table or study it. Personally I do something in between. I don't tend to sift through everything but if someone points me to something I try to fit it within my system. I sometimes question issues on Genesis but there are christian scientists who transcend the creationists. Have you heard of Prof. Dr. Ir. Gerard Dekker? He is a nanotechnology professor in Delft and nominated for the Nobel price. He believes in theistic evolution which points to a design behind the scientifically discovered processes. This is called Intelligent Design. There is a huge discussion going on in the US and on the internet if ID is actually scientific, but I find it very interesting even though I don't delve into it. It actually fits completely in my thinking that nature, created by God, points to a creator if open up to it. Science can show that as well, I'm convinced of that, but then science should first acknowledge that the existence of a creator is possible. I believe you can learn a lot about the creator through his creation just like you can learn about a painter through his paintings, but with that you don't know everything yet.

You use scientific observations to indicate the reasonableness of the bible. But who claims that everything is reasonable? Try to prove that. No, that is the supposition. Is that the same one as from the Bible? No, that supposition is that it's an inspired word of God. Is God a reasonable entity? Ouch, that is a hard question because wherever would you source the answer? If you get it from the Bible you start with faith in the supposition of inspiration and that leads you to a statement about God. That statement can be doubted, tested, attempted and then you arrive, with your reasonable capabilities, to a statement. So you start with faith.

But the fact that they don't know the purpose of the watch implies that within their scope of good and bad, they cannot get an objective verdict on the Watchmaker.

Indeed. But the question is if we can't find the purpose of the watch as well. What if the Watchmaker wanted to reveal that? If He'd say: this is me and this is my intention with you. That would change it all, wouldn't it? But then, like I said, you have to open up to the possibility and not use a measuring stick that excludes God because of course you'll never measure Him.

Phew, it's hard for me to get to a point. I hope you understand me a little. My faith actually directs my reason and not the other way around because I think that would be nonsensical. So besides my personal experience that is an important argument to. OK, I hope this makes a little sense.

This has implications as well for how I view the bible and science. I trust the reliability of the bible even though it's a handed down book from ancient times with some minimal inconsistencies. If you study how the bible was handed down it's a miracle in itself. The problem you mentioned about ambiguity is something else though. It's not ambiguous, it's human to not understand God and to quarrel on who's right. It would be unreasonable to expect it to work any other way. To find God you have to be a mine worker who patiently labors on, through the mud, to finally find the diamond. The problem lies in the translation and the historical aspect. God has only spoken to people who neither lived in our time nor our culture. Our frames of mind are completely different. To still find God you either have to invent a time machine and freeze time like the Muslims are trying (they form a monoculture where the Quran dictates what is allowed and what not but that is not what the Bible champions), or you have to interpret how ancient truths are still true today. That's difficult but not impossible. That's what I hinted at in my first letter regarding the similarity between a scientific community and a christian community. Gos hasn't spoken to some man willy nilly but to a group of people that He made responsible to pass it on. That was Israel and is now the church. And don't start pointing to shortcomings of the church or Israel, I'm more aware of that than you'd think but just like diamonds it's valuable and hard to get, you have to plow through the mud. Haha, i'm getting cynical now but this is my heart speaking. I think the church is like mud, but I believe in the church as a bearer of God's message of love to all people. Explain that with reason. I can't but that's often the case with love.

OK, in closing, your remarks on justice. I don't want to dismiss your thoughts on good and evil and righteous judgement as applying your human sensibility on a supernatural God. You provide good examples and touch on important subjects so I have to delve deeper into that. We're talking about something that is hard to understand. We presuppose God's omnipotence and omniscience. But we also presuppose God's love. OK, then the first point is that God did not create you to receive eternal damnation. So the intention is that the relation between you and Him gets to what it was supposed to be, so you achieve your destiny, achieve florition, who you were intended to be and enjoy God. See, the original sin has complicated it all. Now we tend to think we don't need that relationship but that's a lie. Without the relationship with God we're just not who we really are. Only in relation with God we are ourselves, just like a child is not himself if he denies being a child of his parents. This is visible as well with children who grow up without knowing their parents. They miss something which they look for later. That is how we are. It's not just something from person to person but from person to God as well. Man naturally tends to deny this and sell themselves short. That is in fact what damnation is. Not so much a punishment but a result of a wrong relationship between God and people. But, God goes through great lengths with bible, Israel and church, to rectify the relationship. But you have to understand that it is a loving relationship. God did not create computers but people. We can't be programmed because we can choose by ourselves what our program will be. Now I can't deny that for some it's a lot easier to get to know God than it is for others. I think God has a role in this which I don't understand. He claims to be sovereign in that regard so I just have to accept that and hope I'll understand it some time. But you and me? This is about us. I can only state for myself that I chose to believe in God because He did His darndest to make himself known to me. I see it as a gift but as a choice as well. And I see myself as a person who's loved, loved by God, while I don't deserve it. That makes me happy and thankful and that's why I listen to Him and try to do what He asks me to do by telling others about [him]. Well, that's about what it means for me to believe.

But that wasn't what you asked. Oh, I drive myself mad sometimes, I hope you're still OK to follow my thoughts. What I wanted to say is that God loves us and wants a loving relationship, he can't program us for that relationship because that's an oxymoron. If he notices your decisions in this regard and those decisions are contrary to his intention then he might interfere but he will not because that would conflict with his principles of love. That's why I believe that God gives everyone a fair chance to choose. Indeed it would be senseless if He'd create people who would go straight to hell.

And that's why He won't stop me if I 'sin'. I don't rape five year old girls but I do other bad stuff. God doesn't want that. But He does not interfere. Is He guilty of that then? No, because indeed He cannot be found guilty in a human justice system. I am responsible BECAUSE I have free will. Otherwise it would make no sense to have a justice system in the first place. Because I can love, I can hurt. Because I can hurt, I can be punished when I do. But if God would prevent that I ever do evil, he would also prevent that I ever love. And He does not want that. That's why eternal damnation is appealing because at least it delivers a feeling of justice for those involved in a case like you portrayed but essentially it's about what kind of decision is opposed to evil. So I don't believe that, as you put it, the girl would be rejected by God if this would give her an unfair chance of learning to know Him as He is. But what is fair and what's not in this situation must of course be left to God. Alright, it remains a hard question, for for which I even don't want to provide an appropriate answer.

Noe, I'll just stop with my case. I've made a few points of which I hope they benefit you. I notice that I've been a bit long-winded. I hope you don't mind. I need it myself to properly think things over.

OK, until the next mail and maybe until we meet,

Edward

----- Original Message -----
[snipped]

1. Technical education on a BSc level ↩