Robs second reply
Posted on Tue 11 June 2019 in Main
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 02:49:10 +0100
Subject: Re: Reaction to the letter for me
Hi Edward,
Personally I like in-line replies better, I hope they do not distrurb you.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 06:31:48PM +0100, Edward Roderick wrote:
Thanks for the extended letter. You provide thought provoking material and I like that. I especially liked lastwednesday-ism. I wasn't familiar with that yet!
It wasn't my idea really, I got it from the internet as well
You describe your religious development as someone who believed in both Christianity as well as evolution, to someone who believes in the possible existence of a God and in evolution, to someone who no longer believes in God but still in evolution but who's still seeking. It seems to me that, as you've said, your seeking of the historicity of the Bible caused you to pass these phases. Now you state that you only want to study the historicity of Jesus and what he meant as a person, then your seeking should be over. Very clear.
I'm not too sure it's over by then but that is the most important aspect still my path. I also want to read the Bible completely and have made a small start to that, but that is definitely part of the study. To that I've also purchased the Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling (ed: this is a translation in modern Dutch) because that's an easier read (on my PDA I have the Statenvertaling (ed: Dutch equivalent of the King James version). Unreadable!
If you let me I'd like to comment on that. I don't think I'm stating anything new if I say that it seems to me that this development is directed by your knowledge and 'reasoning' to find the truth. You're using arguments from science and counter-arguments from creationists. As such I don't think it's wrong, I think you're sincere and balanced in this, but I already know where this leads to. You will conclude that Jesus probably existed but that there are insufficient facts to prove he was actually raised from death. You take it for granted that there might have been 500 witnesses and that it's very rare that Jesus' followers, without benefiting in any way, were tortured to death and persisted in stating that it really happened. You happen to trust the state of science today [more than] the noted testimony of 'prejudiced' people. Is that correct? Apparently you cannot believe in something that is unprovable.
Not quite. I agree with you that learning processes are mostly dogmatic, definitely in Beta sciences as well. However, when various theories conflict I tend to adhere to one that is falsifiable but not falsified. That's why I believe in the Big Bang theory but not in the Steady State theory (one that even Einstein believed in before Edwin Hubble demonstrated the expansion of the universe. I believe ib common descent as well (Evolution's hot topic) because of the falsifiable aspect that the number of mutations in non-coding DNA (e.g. the variation in codons that lead to the same amino acid) conforms to the morphological "tree of descent". This is indeed a dogmatic supposition of mine but it's present in the scientific literature ans there are plenty of creationist biologists who would quite like shooting it down. If there's but one gene from e.g. a chicken that equals the same gene in humans more that the gene of a chimp equals that of a human (and we limit the scope to non-coding DNA), then all of Evolution implodes like a pack of cards.
That's what my previous letter was about. I wanted to show you that science is based on an believed assumption. You stated that this is not the case for beta sciences, but who designed gravity, the centrifugal force, the movement of atoms and whatever else that could have lead to the process of evolution? You agreed with me, and backed up with numbers, that many scientists have a religious belief outside of science. Of course they do, because science can only explain through reason what can be explained through reason. Still it was science that you've allowed to 'touch' your faith. You mainly touch on the historicity of the creation and of Jesus. Of course you mean by that what we can factually claim about then with the help of beta sciences and this has lead to yo 'losing' your faith which I think is just replacing it with faith in science. I think you have it in you to want to believe in something but it currently seems that you only want to believe something that is in line with your faith in science, in reason, in 'evidence'.
I must confess that I now doubt everything that I once considered true in my Christiab believe but I haven't thrown it all out yet. About the subject of Christ I don't have an opinion yet, though some aspects that are presented around the person of Christ are somewhat simplistic. E.g. in the booklet "Jezus: feit of fictie" (of which I currently don't remember the English title)1. there is a mention that research on hand writing makes the life events of Jesus a lot more likely that that of Ceasar. However, what is not considered about the historicity in itself, is that there is tangible evidence about Ceasar (like coins with his portrait) but not about Jesus. Those simplifications give me a hard time to value such documentation. If I'd find a recent book on Evolution that presented "Piltdown man" or "Nebraska man" as evidence, I'd throw that book in the garbage.
Regarding the question who developed gravity etc, there's more than enough space for a divinity but I doubt that the Christian God fills that. The origin of the Big Bang is even more interesting (though the "origin" cannot be within our space-time: the Big Bang created space, matter and time, within our space-time there was no "before the Big Bang"), but there is no realistic theroy that can explain the phenomenon. There were some attempts in the direction of colliding "Universe Bubbles" but there's no support to consider it realistic. That, however, does not make the "divinity" more realistic by definition, that lacks support as well. It will likely never be available because as you noted yourself, science can only explain within reason. Outside of what we can measure in our space-time there is no reasonableness for science.
I have a few questions about that, as you can expect. Here they are.
Firstly, I find it hard that you can make claims on one faith about another (with science you claimed God's death, just like Nietzsche). Is that correct? You do this often.
With science I only comment on the (Christian) faith where the manual of the faith makes claims about the scientifically observable. Read: creation and the flood.
If God is all powerful, can He create a rock that He cannot lift? Think about that a little. He can't, can He, so I think you conclude that that God cannot be all powerful.
Though this question is used further[sic] the answer is known. The answer is yes, he can. If God is all powerful he can create a 50 gram stone on earth and remove His omnipotence (which is part of his omnipotence). If he would want to do that is a second question but He can do it. Where I have a problem with his omnipotence, I describe further down at the subject of omniscience/free will.
But then you put God in your system of gravity, mass and movement. However, it's questionable if God is part of that system. This system is the only thing we can measure and prove, but is God part of it and can we use it to get to a conclusion on God's existence? No, I don't think so, [only] when He chooses to reveal himself in that system can we learn something about Him. Even then we should not try to analyze what He revealed according to the rules of the system, because that could only lead to observation, not understanding.
100% agreement. 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.
Let me explain. Suppose a watchmaker creates a watch and places it in a world where a watch never existed before. [People] in that world will analyze that object according to their rules. A chemist will come to conclusions on the composition of the material, a physicist will come to conclusions on the movements inside the object etc. Who of them will be able to say if the watch is good? None of them, because to be able to judge if an object is 'good', you have to know what the purpose of that object was and you will not find that in the observation of the scientists but in the idea that the maker had when creating it. If he wanted to show time with it that will have the be the criterion for judging the object. Other aspects like composition, movement, form and appearance play a role but are inferior to the purpose. A chemist who concludes that the watch keeps time correctly goes outside of his field. That is the field of a watchmaker. Can you see that? If we talk about the purpose of our being, why we are here and who God is, I think we should ask the Watchmaker or search in the places of His revelation in the way He laid it down.
Totally agree. But the fact that they do not know the purpose of the watch does not imply that within their scope of good and bad they can't make an objective assertion about the Watchmaker.
Phew, that requires quite a shift and I question if you can come along, but I just stated my position against yours and I hope I did that correctly.
I hope so as well ;-) Better yet: I hope I understood you well. I think my replies give an indication.
Frankly I don't really want to have a discussion because I tend to notice that positions get firmer and understandings diminish while we need understanding to advance. I'd like to understand you better. I hope you'll view the following criticism in that light. I have a few remarks on your criticism on the Christian faith that are in line with what I stated above.
I don't look forward to simplistic yes/no discussions as well. Until now I can't say that of you, your criticism is well thought through and demand from me to think them over. My replies should mainly be seen as preliminary and subject to change.
You state that when God knows all I no longer have free will. That's a hard subject but I still don't think that's the case. Our free will is exactly that which distinguishes us from animals.
I think you're selling animals short quite a bit. Something like social exclusion is visible e.g. in chimps as well. This implies that there's good and bad in those animals and with that, reward and punishment. There is definitely a difference between humans and animals2. Man is the only life on earth that can state metaphysical questions (like: why are we here). That difference with animals looks quantitative to me. I think man in the caveman era did not differ that much from animals even though there's hardly any physical or genetic difference between modern man and caveman. The only real difference is the accumulation of knowledge.
We can choose to love, to follow our instincts or have others decide what we do. Our environment influences us, our nature and our personality and then we choose. (I believe) God made us like that. Does this limit Him? In the execution of his plans this could slow him down or have Him search other methods to execute his plan. Two remarks. Firstly, God is not bound to time, so He's yesterday, today and tomorrow. He is. So He is tomorrow. He sees what I will do tomorrow. He does not cause me to do it but He sees it. I choose, He anticipates. He did not program us.
You agree with me that God anticipates what I will choose. Actually I think anticipate is a bit weak because that implies that He would not know what choice I make tomorrow but takes all possibilities into account. Since He's outside of time he knows what my choice will be so there's only one possibility to take into account. Now I happen to be an (incidental) programmer. As a computer user you've ran into bugs often enough (like the Blue Screen of Death in Windows). These errors are unwanted by the programmer. If I now write a program with which I want to achieve target X and I know that following the method I use I will achieve target Y then it would be absurd for me to still use that method. Now God knows that my choices will lead to eternal damnation and he still creates me. That seems comparibly absurd to me. I don't mean that the option "evil" cannot exist but it would seem more sensible to me that he's only create people who wouldn't choose that.
Now this line of thinking can be reduced to me wanting to apply my human senses to a supernatural God. That's correct but without it I'm afraid there next to nothing left to estimate God's work and to praise and thank Him, or not. I likewise have an issue with God's omnipotence. Suppose a five-year-old girl is brutally raped and killed while a third person is standing by and looking without helping a hand. We would consider this third person comparibly guilty and heartless as the rapist/killer. We don't apply the same measures to God. The argument I hear against this, namely that God will apply justice in the afterlife doesn't hold because suppose the child survives and spends the rest of her life handicapped and traumatized which leads her to deny God with the statement: "a good God doesn't do this to me", then she'll be eternally damned. This does not harmonize with my idea of good and evil.
He did not program us. He is however in a relation to us, associated Himself with us and that's why there is a mutual influence. At least, that's how it was in paradise. That way God was able to reveal himself to us. That was disturbed by original sin and that made it harder to get to know God and be convinced of his existence. The relation has been severed. Now, that's the gospel and you know that but it's relevant for our conversation and for the next criticism you had against faith, but first the second remark. If this is the case, what about the evil in the world? Didn't He foresee that? That is a hard question which is still unclear among all combined theologians. I myself think that he did foresee it but considered it a side effect of the free will that He wanted to provide to us because only with free will can we love and because God is love he wants to give and receive love. That is only possible from free subjects. If there is love, there's also the possibility for the lack of it just like when there is light there's the possibility for darkness. With love, there was also the option of evil. God dis not and does not want that evil to surface, that's why He wants to lead our life. But we have to choose that. He enabled that though the cross.
I think I reacted to this above already. If he would really want that he would only create people who would make the right choice.
Now I still arrive on your second point on the fairness of God which you claim conflicts the love of God. I am aware if the chapters and verses you cite and I's surprised that they are in the Bible. But still, I still believe God is love. How? I can't really explain it and that's why I'd like to ask you another question. God's love cannot be understood, so deep, it happens to not be a sentimental, emotional love but a deep seeding, practical, active love. He himself showed on the cross what Love is. If you understand that, I think only then you'll understand Num. 23 and Ps. 137:9, at least, then you can accept that God is love despite the suffering we're confronted with. If you sincerely want to investigate if God is love then I think you'll have to dive into the Bible and investigate the following parts:
- Isa 53
Matt 26:36-46
also the parts on the crucifixion that you're probably familiar with (Matt 26, 27, Luke 22, 23, John 19)
Rom 3:21-26 and 8:31,32
Heb 2:5-18
Eph 3:14-19
Well, that's quite a bit on your plate. I'm not sure if you're motivated to do this or if you'll get it.
Thanks for the references. If I'll get it remains to be seen but I'll definitely do it (though I'll postpone it until I'm back in the Netherlands where I have a Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling. If I would use the Statenvertaling the answer to the question of me getting it would be known up front :)
It comes down to this being the way that God underwent the suffering to make us part of His nature (by himself becoming part of our nature) and rise us up and get us in contact with Him so we can once again live as intended. So you're not predetermined to be damned for eternity because Jesus was damned to rise you up for eternity.
You point that science leaves ever so less room for God is logical since science only wants to view God with reason and in their system to they by definition will not find God because He only allows to be found by people who want to seek Him with their whole heart, soul and mind, but not only with their mind. You have to surrender your whole life, then you'll find Him.
Not to belittle the faith but If I consider subjects like creation and the flood and the way many believers approach these, I get the feeling that you need to seek with your whole heart and soul but without your mind. I've been told before that you need to surrender completely and that you will then find Him, but I think the Bible, the only guide to this end, is very ambiguous. The fact that so many Christian denominations exist, all with their own interpretation of Biblical aspects which determine how we should arrange our life, seems to me a clear indication of the Bible's ambiguity.
By the way, you were also bringing up justice. Now I'm not a lawyer but I have an issue with your reasoning. Once again, you apply human criteria to God. If you need to punish inter-human behavior with equal proportions (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a biblical principle), that does not imply that God has to as well. If we sin against the Holy God then the relation is severed because God cannot and will not to what is not holy (immaculate, pure, clean), because this would defile Him. He doesn't want that but has no choice since He would no longer be able to be himself. That's why eternal punishment applies to us, through death. Only salvation from that punishment would clear the road to Him. That's why Jesus is called the Savior. Regarding the point of sins of the parents applying to children, that's harder but I can say something on that. My granddad was an authoritarian man. My dad thought that was terrible. He did not want to be like that. He decided to raise his kids gently. Yet, somehow he was not able to because at some moments the shell busted and the authoritarian feelings were exposed. I was enraged every time during those bursts and decided to be even gentler. Three guesses what's stirring in me. Is that character? No, that's sin. That's our nature which goes from father to son. Kan it be interrupted? Yes, I discovered this pattern (and other patterns with a similar trajectory) and put the to God and my father (not all of them yet) and prayed for forgiveness and recovery and I notice a change. What I want to say is this. I'm my father's son, genetically, emotionally and socially. I'm connected to him in lots of ways. I'm not a separate individual. I am a person who's related to others, my father among them. What I do has repercussions on all my relations. I think that's true on a spiritual level as well. Even if current practice of law does not acknowledge this does not mean that it isn't the case. In other words, I think this biblical principle is truer than current law acknowledges and when this is studied more we'll be better equipped to see and judge these connections. However, this will probably not satisfy you completely. Let's keep it at that this is the way that I connect my faith to these biblical issues.
Justice is indeed not static and different times and cultures have different thoughts about it. If however we want to qualify God as just we can only do so within our own frame of reference. Subsidiarity3 is an essential part of that. If laws would be adjusted so that children can be punished for the deeds of their ancestors, that might be in line with the Bible but I have a hard time imagining a single country where the population would concur. It seems to me that subsidiarity is ingrained in our idea of justice.
Well, that was quite a bit again, maybe this time you'll have to read it more than three times but I hope it touches the issues you're dealing with and that you can take away something from it.
I sure can. The Biblical references will be studied carefully after returning to the Netherlands.
In closing I have a counter question. I understand that you are not only a sociologist but a civil engineer as well. (What a combination!) What is your stance regarding the historicity of the Genesis creation and the flood? So, are you a "Young Earth Creationist"? If so, how do you cope with the scientific observations like the apparent age of the universe, the high consistency of radiometric and isochron dating and the genetic and morphological similarities of Common Descent? Just curious...
BTW, I hope that this week (before I leave) I can meet you IRL. We'll see about that.
Greetings, Rob