Attempts at Honesty

Reflections on the interplay of the Bible and Culture

Home Archives for 2012

Archives for 2012

Hypothesis, research and faith

Posted on Written by 9 Comments

According to Science Buddies, the steps to conducting scientific experiment are as follows:

  1. Ask a Question
  2. Do Background Research
  3. Construct a Hypothesis
  4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  6. Communicate Your Results

Research

It seems to me that Christian thinkers follow much the same method. We ask questions about life and destiny, we do research, we draw some conclusions based on research, test our experience against our conclusions and communicate the results.

Those who argue that faith and science are incompatible would quibble with this. Thanks to The Poached Egg, I ran across the following definition of atheism from the American Atheist:

“Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.”

The difference between Christian and atheist thinkers lies in what is allowed as evidence. If you are not open to the idea of God, nor are open to any supernatural explanation of the world, then you will not agree that the Christian world view provides an acceptable explanation of what we see.

However, if you are open to God being part of the explanation of what we see then I believe that an open examination of the evidence will bring you to the conclusion that faith is reasonable. You may still choose to disbelieve, but such an openness will allow for faith to be considered a reasonable response to the evidence.

Within the scientific community there are sometimes opposing theories interpreting a given set of data. Science is not monolithic on all topics; there is room for disagreement and interpretation. This indicates to me that there is a gap between what is certain and what is probable in the minds of the scientists.

Why then do those who consider science as antagonistic to faith not allow Christians to have similar gaps? We get criticized for not having sufficient evidence to prove the existence of God beyond doubt. We are not allowed gaps in our knowledge yet science has gaps. In my mind this is a double standard.

As with science, the existence of gaps in our knowledge does not invalidate what we do know to be true. If Jesus was right, we know how things will ultimately be resolved. As Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 13:12, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully.” Until then, let’s act upon what we do know, while waiting for the gaps to be resolved.

May that resolution be soon!

Getting caught in the blame game – Part 2

Posted on Written by 1 Comment

This is a continuation of Getting caught in the blame game – Part 1

CrossThe fact that we are inclined to blame others is an indication of the guilt (sometime legitimate, sometimes illegitimate) or disappointment that seems to be the universal condition.

The Judeo-Christian world view does provide an answer to the question of why humans have a sense of why life should be different than it is. The Bible also provides the answer as to why we feel the need to blame others when things don’t turn out the way we like.

If you go to the Bible, you will find the answer in Genesis Chapter 3, where the first rebellion against God is recorded. If you read this chapter, please note how Adam and Eve responded when confronted with their sin.

Our first forebears tried to blame others for their behavior. Adam blamed Eve; Eve blamed the serpent. When Adam reminded God that Eve was a gift, Adam was essentially blaming God also. We have been blaming others ever since this first sin. We struggle to face up to our own failings and then look to blame others for the mess we find ourselves in.

The problem with blaming is that the person who blames others does not understand that many of his wounds are self inflicted. It is not until we stop blaming others that we begin to see that we cause many of our own problems. I understand that the human psyche is complex and that there is difficulty in understanding what prompts us to blame. We do irrational things when we act out of our woundedness. Yet, we must face up to our own failings.

I’m not saying that any of this is easy. Our desire to blame others is inherent to our humanity. Yet growth requires that we face this tendency and work toward healing.

Not only does the Bible provide a diagnosis of the problem, it also provides the solution to the problem of blaming others. Scripture indicates that the antidote to guilt is righteousness. Furthermore, the Bible tells us that this righteousness is not something that we can generate on our own. The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 1:16-17:

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.”

Paul tells us that the gospel is the good news of how to be relieved of the guilt associated with our failures. The gospel contains the power to bring that righteousness to those who believe it.

Later in the book of Romans Paul pens the freeing words, “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). In the absence of condemnation, we should have the confidence to get our guilt out in the open and get it dealt with. We know we will be forgiven, so why do we hang on to the guilt? Why do we continue to blame?

Love – not busyness or programs

Posted on Written by 1 Comment

Man on treadmillSo much of church life in America is centered on busyness, programs and meetings, that it is possible to lose sight of what is really important. There is a danger of losing our focus. Paul tells us that our focus should be love.

Part of the danger is the great need that is within and without the church. People are becoming increasingly battered by life choices that are validated by the culture but prove to be damaging to the individual. There is much to do.

Yet the danger is that we take this on in our own strength and move ahead of God and without realizing it, supplant what God is trying to do.

In the opening verses of Philippians, Paul lets us know how he prayed for that church. In Phil. 1:9-11 Paul prays that the Philippians’ love might abound in knowledge and discernment. He did not pray for their busyness to abound. Nor did he pray for their programs to abound; he prayed for their love to abound.

He further qualifies this statement by praying specifically that the love would abound in knowledge and discernment. This is not a squishy, emotional love. Paul desires that the Philippians (and we) would have a love based on truth and good judgment. Our love must make the object be well not just feel well.

The purpose of this love is so that we might approve the things that are excellent, be sincere, not give offense and might be filled with the fruits of righteousness. Love is the basis on which all these things depend. Our love should work itself out in a life that is worth emulating.

I was reminded recently that it is very possible to be so busy doing good things that we miss out on opportunities to really convey love. When this happens, it is like being on a treadmill. A lot of activity takes place, but it doesn’t get you anywhere.

How many times have we had to have 20 second greetings in the church lobby because we have to rush to pick up a child, provide child care, cover the coffee ministry, the library ministry or some other activity? We have sign-ups and schedules and coverage charts which need to be updated and communicated. These are all good things, but the breathless activity often makes it difficult to deepen relationships.

I get the sense from the gospels that even though the needs surrounding Jesus were great, he still found time for teaching his disciples. He found time to share meals with tax collectors. He found time to be alone with his father.

Maybe we need to cut “ministries” rather than adding them. We certainly need a lot more love and perhaps a few less programs. Rather than rushing off to that “ministry” post, we should take the time to really minister to the person next to us in the pew. We could use a little less superficiality and a little more honesty.

Take a deep breath, relax and be real.

Getting caught in the blame game – Part 1

Posted on Written by 1 Comment

Blaming OthersI am neither brilliant nor a philosopher so I make no claims toward brilliant philosophy. Yet I have observed a behavior in humans that I would like to explore. This being a presidential election year, examples of this behavior abound. I am writing about the behavior of blaming others. Where does this need to blame come from?

My question is this: if naturalism, the belief that we are products of natural processes and not the product of divine intervention, is true, they why is there so much effort wasted in finding someone to blame whenever anything goes wrong?

I have a puppy which displays normal puppy behavior. Specifically she likes to chew things and dig. Even when she chews things that are unacceptable (such as human fingers and clothing) I see no sense of remorse in her or the need to blame anyone for the behavior. Another dog of ours felt the need to chase a skunk and displayed no remorse when he came back to the house bearing an odor from the encounter. He ran right into the house as if nothing was wrong or out of the ordinary.

In the case of dogs, one could argue that they act in the way they are wired to act. While humans can change that behavior somewhat, the extent of change is limited. The bulk of their behavior is determined by their DNA.

Humans have the distinction of not only being able to understand and respond to what is, but having a sense of what ought to be. Chance and genetics might explain what is, but they cannot explain why we often think that things should be different than they are.

If we believe that what we are is determined by our DNA, then why bother assessing blame? Why spend so much effort in figuring out who made the mistake, who made the bad choice, who pushed the wrong button?

I will take it one step further. We send future executives to colleges and graduate schools that teach them that they are products of evolution and that there are no absolute standards of right and wrong. They are taught that they make their own rules and no-one can tell them how to live. Then when they live this way in the business world we throw them in jail because they violate insider trading laws or cook the books and bilk millions out of unsuspecting investors. Is this not a double standard?

Why all the angst in the recent “occupy” micro-movement? If Wall Street executives are doing what they are programmed to do, why bother to protest? If naturalism and evolution are true, on what basis are you protesting anyway? On what basis are you claiming unfairness if there are no absolute standards of right and wrong? If strength and cunning are the means of survival, then why protest when the strong and cunning violate the weak and ignorant?

This post will be continued in part two where I will explore how the Bible speaks to these issues and provides a reasonable explanation of what we observe in humanity.

This post is continued in Part 2

Categories

Archives

Blogger Grid
Follow me on Blogarama