I have another question, this one pertaining to the theory that religion like everything thing else has evolved from a simpler form. For example, polytheism evolved into monotheism, and it did so just to help us survive and feel happy. I guess I can see our sense of spirituality evolving so we can have a relationship with God, but it doesn't seem like Darwinian evolution isn't sufficient enough to explain away religion. I would very much like to hear what your views are on this theory.
Response:
The fact that our understanding of God has "evolved" doesn't make it false. Our vision has evolved, our ability to think has evolved, science and mathematics have evolved.
Sunday, 7 October 2012
Free will and the Fall
First I would to thank John for this website, it really helped me out with my journey from a Young Earth Creationist to a Theistic Evolutionist. I have two questions for you.
The first is what is your view on the fall of man? Did man actually fall or were we always sinful and still in need of atonement?
My second questions is on free will. Did we actually have a choice to be perfect and follow God whole heartedly? It seems more like we are naturally inclined to sin? Which gives me the impression we never truly had the free will to follow God sinlessly. Maybe I am over thinking this and there is a easy theological answer? Either way your Input will be greatly appreciated.
Response: None of this is "easy". It seems to us that there must have been a moment when people/hominids became sufficiently self- and God-conscious to sin, and it is only too probable that they did so pretty soon after that moment. It's a bit like "spontaneous symmetry breaking" - in theory a pencil stood on its point could stand like that forever - in practice it will fall quite quickly without external support.
The first is what is your view on the fall of man? Did man actually fall or were we always sinful and still in need of atonement?
My second questions is on free will. Did we actually have a choice to be perfect and follow God whole heartedly? It seems more like we are naturally inclined to sin? Which gives me the impression we never truly had the free will to follow God sinlessly. Maybe I am over thinking this and there is a easy theological answer? Either way your Input will be greatly appreciated.
Response: None of this is "easy". It seems to us that there must have been a moment when people/hominids became sufficiently self- and God-conscious to sin, and it is only too probable that they did so pretty soon after that moment. It's a bit like "spontaneous symmetry breaking" - in theory a pencil stood on its point could stand like that forever - in practice it will fall quite quickly without external support.
Wouldn't Jesus have been buried in a shallow grave?
May I ask what answer you would give to those who say that Jesus, to Rome, a crucified criminal, would have been buried in a shallow grave with other criminals rather than in the garden tomb?
Response: Clearly Jesus was a very unusual figure and there is no reason to expect that he would have been treated in the “usual” way. Had there been a non-empty tomb/grave the roman and Jewish authorities could have put a stop to all this talk about resurrection immediately.
Response: Clearly Jesus was a very unusual figure and there is no reason to expect that he would have been treated in the “usual” way. Had there been a non-empty tomb/grave the roman and Jewish authorities could have put a stop to all this talk about resurrection immediately.
Could Schopenauer's "irratonal will" explain everything?
Please help I think, I am losing my faith here.
I have recently read Schopenauer and his world view is pretty self-consistent. The "irrational will" could be the true metaphysical starting point of the universe. Thus it explains the problem of "evil". The will is blind a primordial force, personified in man, that nothing can satisfy so that it actually orders the consciousness to doing anything to fulfilling that hunger.
That makes happiness and peace pretty difficult to attain. I am Looking forward to your answer.
Response: The “irrational will” you describe is a pretty close fit to fallen humanity. If we simply pursue our own gratification we end up in a pretty diabolical state.
But I don’t see that this could really be the starting point of the universe. If the origin of the universe (the Big Bang or whatever it turns out to be) is a purely physical event, mental constructs such as “will” arise some billions of years later when beings capable of willing have evolved. Alternatively there is an Ultimate Creator. Could this Ultimate Creator be irrational? Well God’s rationality is certainly above and beyond ours in many ways. But everything we know about science points to a deep rationality in creation. And we know in our hearts that love is the greatest and most important principle, and that a Loving Ultimate Creator is greater than an irrational or non-loving one could be.
That makes happiness and peace pretty difficult to attain. I am Looking forward to your answer.
Response: The “irrational will” you describe is a pretty close fit to fallen humanity. If we simply pursue our own gratification we end up in a pretty diabolical state.
But I don’t see that this could really be the starting point of the universe. If the origin of the universe (the Big Bang or whatever it turns out to be) is a purely physical event, mental constructs such as “will” arise some billions of years later when beings capable of willing have evolved. Alternatively there is an Ultimate Creator. Could this Ultimate Creator be irrational? Well God’s rationality is certainly above and beyond ours in many ways. But everything we know about science points to a deep rationality in creation. And we know in our hearts that love is the greatest and most important principle, and that a Loving Ultimate Creator is greater than an irrational or non-loving one could be.
I'll try to catch up over the next couple of months. Sorry!
I've been horribly remiss in updating this but I'll try to catch up over the next couple of months. Sorry!
Sunday, 17 April 2011
Why is information from the Bible not used for science?
I am quite newly Christian. I've just read the article about you and the Divine Action Program in "Physics of the Divine" by Zeeya Merali in the March 2011 Issue of Discover Magazine. I am a layperson. And while I have postsecondary education and have read some books on quantum physics, the detailed science often moves across my brain like the Saskatchewan wind blows over skiffs of prairie snow: it's briefly there, and then.... it's moved on!
That said... I am inspired by how you are building connections between science and God, and grateful for the work you do. My question is maybe too simple, but I really need to ask it after reading this Discover article and thought you'd be the perfect person to ask (how great you have this website):
Q: As regards some of these unexplained mysteries at the quantum level in the physical world, why is information from the bible not considered as a possible source of insight or knowledge in these matters, in the scientific dialogue? Or maybe it is, and the article just does not have that focus?
God communicates with us in the Bible in many ways, and certainly the conviction that a loving ultimate creator God was behind the universe was a major inspiration for the great Christians from Newton to Maxwell and beyond who discovered much of science. The Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge still has inscribed the words of Psalm 111: 'Magna opera Domini exquisita in omnes voluntates ejus', meaning 'The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein'.
However it is clear from reading the Bible that God is concerned there to communicate the fundamental relationships between God and His creation including esp. humanity, not to communicate scientific details. So whereas the Bible can and does inspire scientists to deep insights, any insights however motivated then have to be subject to scientific scrutiny in the usual ways.
That said... I am inspired by how you are building connections between science and God, and grateful for the work you do. My question is maybe too simple, but I really need to ask it after reading this Discover article and thought you'd be the perfect person to ask (how great you have this website):
Q: As regards some of these unexplained mysteries at the quantum level in the physical world, why is information from the bible not considered as a possible source of insight or knowledge in these matters, in the scientific dialogue? Or maybe it is, and the article just does not have that focus?
God communicates with us in the Bible in many ways, and certainly the conviction that a loving ultimate creator God was behind the universe was a major inspiration for the great Christians from Newton to Maxwell and beyond who discovered much of science. The Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge still has inscribed the words of Psalm 111: 'Magna opera Domini exquisita in omnes voluntates ejus', meaning 'The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein'.
However it is clear from reading the Bible that God is concerned there to communicate the fundamental relationships between God and His creation including esp. humanity, not to communicate scientific details. So whereas the Bible can and does inspire scientists to deep insights, any insights however motivated then have to be subject to scientific scrutiny in the usual ways.
Animals and natural beauty in Heaven
I'm wondering if I could ask Rev. Dr John Polkinghorne to explain how heaven might be like in some details of his choice. The more the merrier of course.
ie how it looks like there, is there food there, lakes, animals, mountains, illnesses etc. just some examples.
I have asked this to many people, but no one seems able to answer anything about it than a tiny description which didn't reveal anything really.
NB: We know there are no illnesses. Heaven is perfect union with God rather than a “place”. The beauty and good will transcend the beauty and good of food, lakes etc.. but it may (or may not) be less misleading to say that there is food/are lakes than to deny it.
Whether there are animals in heaven is not I think known and occasionally debated.
ie how it looks like there, is there food there, lakes, animals, mountains, illnesses etc. just some examples.
I have asked this to many people, but no one seems able to answer anything about it than a tiny description which didn't reveal anything really.
NB: We know there are no illnesses. Heaven is perfect union with God rather than a “place”. The beauty and good will transcend the beauty and good of food, lakes etc.. but it may (or may not) be less misleading to say that there is food/are lakes than to deny it.
Whether there are animals in heaven is not I think known and occasionally debated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)