God's Two Options

[skylercollins]

I blogged about something some time ago I thought I'd share. It's titled "God's Two Options" and is about God's options when it comes to requiring faith to know Him. Let the discussion ensue!

God's Two Options - by Skyler Collins

[Guest Godless]

First of all, I would like to say that that was a very well-written blog that made some very good points that I couldn't help but agree with. I would, however, be interested to learn what it is that you believe converts faith into knowledge. You said (or at least suggested) that faith in God can lead to knowledge of his existence and his will. How exactly does that happen?

[prisonchaplain]

Godless, perhaps another word for faith here is perspective? When we view reality from the supposition that God exists, we see aspects we otherwise would miss. I find this even in relationships. If my wife says, "What's wrong with you?" How do I understand her question? Knowing her, and that she loves and trusts me, I can see genuine concern, and perhaps (depending on tone), a bit of irritation. If this woman were a stranger to me, I might see hostility, condescension, or any other number of misinterpretations. Likewise, to believe that God is, and particularly that he is interested in my well being, helps me see reality and catch aspects that I would otherwise miss.

[skylercollins]

First of all, I would like to say that that was a very well-written blog that made some very good points that I couldn't help but agree with. I would, however, be interested to learn what it is that you believe converts faith into knowledge. You said (or at least suggested) that faith in God can lead to knowledge of his existence and his will. How exactly does that happen?

I think our faith is affirmed when after we reach out to Him, he reaches back. That can happen any number of ways. Then it becomes knowledge, however it still requires faith to believe that what has happened is indeed from God. And on and on it goes, as are faith and knowledge increase.

I think ultimately it comes back to agency and our choosing to pursue that course and interpret those experiences as such. With reason, of course.

[Guest Godless]

Godless, perhaps another word for faith here is perspective? When we view reality from the supposition that God exists, we see aspects we otherwise would miss. I find this even in relationships. If my wife says, "What's wrong with you?" How do I understand her question? Knowing her, and that she loves and trusts me, I can see genuine concern, and perhaps (depending on tone), a bit of irritation. If this woman were a stranger to me, I might see hostility, condescension, or any other number of misinterpretations. Likewise, to believe that God is, and particularly that he is interested in my well being, helps me see reality and catch aspects that I would otherwise miss.

You raise a very good point. I suppose that's why religious beliefs are commonly referred to as worldviews. In that same vein though, is it not true that belief in God can cast doubt on truths that would otherwise be plain to us? We've seen a lot of conflict between science and religion in recent years. Some believers accept the evidence they're given and are thus able to reconcile their beliefs with scientific progress. But there are still many who are unable to do so because of scriptural teachings and prophesies.

[Guest Godless]

I think our faith is affirmed when after we reach out to Him, he reaches back. That can happen any number of ways. Then it becomes knowledge, however it still requires faith to believe that what has happened is indeed from God. And on and on it goes, as are faith and knowledge increase.

I think ultimately it comes back to agency and our choosing to pursue that course and interpret those experiences as such. With reason, of course.

That type of knowledge is highly subjective. Can it really be called knowledge? Or is it closer to confirmation bias?

[a-train]

I often like to think of the term 'faith' as in faithfulness. Being faithful to one's spouse is not simply acknowledging or believing in their existence. It is being trustworthy, it is being loyal, it is treating your relationship with integrity.

I started out thinking: "Well, if there is such a Being, I want to do Him right." Connected with this line of thinking is: "I must do others right also, or else I would be unworthy of claiming integrity."

At every phase of my understanding, this thinking has been the same and it is the same today. If one wants to know if there be any God, he must first intend to reverence Him. Those who say things like: "If God will prove himself, then I'll have respect" seem to exhibit the same flaw of character we find in those who are socially repugnant among humankind. An example is those who said: "When black folks prove themselves, then and only then will I respect them."

The terrible flaw here is that this prideful line of thinking automatically puts us in a position to only befriend our enemies who humble us and demand our respect through compulsion. I would say this is not a very well thought path.

If we intend to determine that there is a God, it would be preferable to discover Him peacefully.

-a-train

[foodstr2]

Regarding the conflict between science and religion, if you haven't seen Ben Steins' Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, I strongly urge you to get a copy. The DVD can be had for about $13 on eBay.

[a-train]

You raise a very good point. I suppose that's why religious beliefs are commonly referred to as worldviews. In that same vein though, is it not true that belief in God can cast doubt on truths that would otherwise be plain to us? We've seen a lot of conflict between science and religion in recent years. Some believers accept the evidence they're given and are thus able to reconcile their beliefs with scientific progress. But there are still many who are unable to do so because of scriptural teachings and prophesies.

The war between science and religion is only between particular scientific notions and particular religious notions. The LDS perspective changes the whole game, because LDS teaching refutes ex nihilo Creationism. Thus, the science that seems to indicate there was no ex nihilo creation is not troublesome to the Mormon.

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

Young Earth Creationism may be guilty. I'd suggest some Darwinian Evolutionists are guilty also, with an almost allergic rejection of Intelligent Design as even a remote possibility. So, the OP only works if God exists.

In 1981 I took a Philosophy of Religion course at my community college. The professor, who was either agnostic or atheist, contended that God can neither be proved or disproved. We consider the classic arguments on both sides.

To this day I believe he was right. If God exists, and He is the God of Christianity, then we Christians have added insight. If there is no God, then atheists are ahead of the game. So, added knowledge or perspective may be an attraction that both worldviews hold out, but I doubt they will tip the balance either way for the skeptic seeking answers.

[Guest Godless]

Regarding the conflict between science and religion, if you haven't seen Ben Steins' Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, I strongly urge you to get a copy. The DVD can be had for about $13 on eBay.

I have not seen that documentary, nor do I intend to. The premises for the film are tragically flawed. ID theory has been put under fair scientific scrutiny (look up the Dover, PA school board trial) and has been found lacking of real scientific substance. This is called peer review, not persecution. ID theory has been disproven in the same way that geocentrism and flat earth theory were hundreds of years ago.

[prisonchaplain]

In the documentary Richard Dawkins dismisses as the most ridiculous of children's fairy tales, the notion that an intelligence designed the world, but then seems to accept that a far superior alien race may have seeded worlds. What I don't understand is how that theoretical alien race could not be an intelligent designer? In other words, Dawkins seems to be against ID more because he perceives it to imply theism, and to be a cover for Creationism, than because he actually finds the theory itself untenable.

[Guest Godless]

In the documentary Richard Dawkins dismisses as the most ridiculous of children's fairy tales, the notion that an intelligence designed the world, but then seems to accept that a far superior alien race may have seeded worlds. What I don't understand is how that theoretical alien race could not be an intelligent designer? In other words, Dawkins seems to be against ID more because he perceives it to imply theism, and to be a cover for Creationism, than because he actually finds the theory itself untenable.

There are many theories held in the scientific community in regard to the creation of the Earth. I've heard the alien one. I personally disagree with many of Dawkins' religious assertions. However, I think it's safe to say that, were his alien theory to be disproven, he would accept the evidence provided and move on rather than cling to a debunked theory. This kinda ties back in to the OP (because I know we've gotten a bit off-topic) in that it shows how faith can potentially blind us and incline us to cling to false truths. I know that this isn't true of all believers, but it still points out a very large flaw in the faith-based worldview.

[skylercollins]

Since it's been hijacked, here's a good article by LDS scientist David Baily.

Latter-day Creationism - by David Bailey

[a-train]

I think the issue isn't so much ID, but the discussion of the origin of life. There is the arguments of irreducible complexity and the scaffold objection. The discussion and study of these concepts is indeed science just as much as is the discussion and study of Aristotle's ideas whether proven right or wrong.

Certainly a science teacher who puts forth assertions as scientifically validated points which are not so is in need of correction. But it would not be any sin for this teacher to present the various views of various scientists.

"What is the origin of life on earth?" is an interesting and wonderful question. Has science answered it? Darwinism is certainly deficient in getting at the actual substance of the question. Science has not effectively yet demonstrated that life on earth came through some process of raising non-living material to life. Perhaps life is uncreated and exists on countless spheres and always has and always will. To me, this would fit our scientific models better and easier than anything I can tell.

Raising non-living matter to life is less scientific and more superstitious in my view. If our observations are all we have, then all life comes from life. I see nothing to suggest that there ever was a time without life nor will there ever be.

Also, if the bringing of non-living material to life is possible, could not this process have occured in multiple simultaneous events on Earth? Does it seem more likely that under primordial earthly conditions enabling the raising of non-living material to life, that only a single living organism was spawned from non-living material rather than two or more? Common biochemistry and the genetic code of earthly organisms demonstrate common order and make up of life on earth, but how does this prove common descent exactly?

If it does NOT prove common descent, a whole new realm of possibilities and questions arise.

-a-train

Edited November 29, 2008 by a-train

[Guest Godless]

I think the issue isn't so much ID, but the discussion of the origin of life. There is the arguments of irreducible complexity and the scaffold objection. The discussion and study of these concepts is indeed science just as much as is the discussion and study of Aristotle's ideas whether proven right or wrong.

I'm not familiar with the scaffold objection. As for irreducible complexity, I'll grant that the theory is scientific and was very deserving of the careful consideration that it received. However, it has long been disproven through peer review.

"What is the origin of life on earth?" is an interesting and wonderful question. Has science answered it? Darwinism is certainly deficient in getting at the actual substance of the question. Science has not effectively yet demonstrated that life on earth came through some process of raising non-living material to life. Perhaps life is uncreated and exists on countless spheres and always has and always will. To me, this would fit our scientific models better and easier than anything I can tell.

Raising non-living matter to life is less scientific and more superstitious in my view. If our observations are all we have, then all life comes from life. I see nothing to suggest that there ever was a time without life nor will there ever be.

Also, if the bringing of non-living material to life is possible, could not this process have occured in multiple simultaneous events on Earth? Does it seem more likely that under primordial earthly conditions enabling the raising of non-living material to life, that only a single living organism was spawned from non-living material rather than two or more? Common biochemistry and the genetic code of earthly organisms demonstrate common order and make up of life on earth, but how does this prove common descent exactly?

If it does NOT prove common descent, a whole new realm of possibilities and questions arise.

-a-train

Darwinism seeks to explain the complex variety of life on Earth, not its origins. In that regard, it is considered a rock-solid theory. Origins theory is called abiogenesis and it is much less solid than Darwinism. There are lots of theories out there, and as far as I know there isn't yet one that is preferred over the others. If there's one thing I love about science, it's the freedom to say "I don't know" while never giving up on finding the answer. I don't blame theists for wanting to have all of the answers, but just know that there is nothing wrong with doubt and uncertainty. The world we live in is full of mysteries, and it is that fact that has led us to countless scientific discoveries. In a world based on faith, where's the adventure of seeking out the unknown?

[skylercollins]

I just found some more David Baily resources. Thought I'd share:

Papers Directory

[Maya]

I am sorry i dont have time to read all this... but I have an opinion after I read some of your Blog:

I think we really are supposed to understand right and wrong and not only to understand but to choose the right, to find out the right, because in the place where we are heading, only those that can do this by themselves without God all the time telling us, what is right and what is wrong, can enherit the highest possible. Why this... I think it is because those that do not know excactly what is right and what wrong... they may cause a LOT of trouble in the life to come after death if allowed to the highest places!

We all will get a place we feel comfortable in. NOT all of us are made to make worlds...

[Traveler]

As a scientist and a Christian I would propose that the first step of investigation of any subject is not to ask what is or what is not but what is possible and what is not possible. The next step is to determine what is probable.

I have yet to encounter a scientist that is so closed minded to say that G-d is not a possibility. It is the religionist that is most likely to reject science (such as evolution) but without considering the possibility. In such discussions a mind trained in logic will recognize a distinct advantage to the scientific point of view and arguments. Yet I would also argue that there is nothing in any scientific advancement during the entire quest of man that eliminates the possibility of G-d.

The historical problem with science and religion is the conflict that some in religion has with the interpretation of scientific data that threatens their traditional views of G-d. This disconnect has in turn left most of science with no way to attach what is being learned to the traditions that many are currently using to define G-d.

The primary disconnect is the notion that G-d and his works cannot be understood by mere mortal men and therefore the advances of man’s science cannot be compared to the traditional understandings of G-d. This placement of G-d and his works to be unknown has over the last 200 years diminished the probability of G-d because that which is real becomes logical and understandable (therefore probable) as we learn more about it and become more familiar with it and other truths.

If we do not adjust our understanding of G-d according to the truth that we learn then that which we worship is not the G-d of truth.

The Traveler

[skylercollins]

The primary disconnect is the notion that G-d and his works cannot be understood by mere mortal men and therefore the advances of man’s science cannot be compared to the traditional understandings of G-d. This placement of G-d and his works to be unknown has over the last 200 years diminished the probability of G-d because that which is real becomes logical and understandable (therefore probable) as we learn more about it and become more familiar with it and other truths.

If we do not adjust our understanding of G-d according to the truth that we learn then that which we worship is not the G-d of truth.

The Traveler

That reminds me of this quote be Brigham Young, actually:

Yet I will say with regard to miracles, there is no such thing save to the ignorant--that is, there never was a result wrought out by God or by any of His creatures without there being a cause for it. There may be results, the causes of which we do not see or understand, and what we call miracles are no more than this--they are the results or effects of causes hidden from our understandings.

[foodstr2]

As a holder of only a GED (1984), perhaps this only illustrates my ignorance, but IMO, had Darwin understood the complexity of a single CELL--as we know it today--there would have been no Origin of Species. Likewise with his non-knowledge of DNA.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how "nature" knew to evolve the EYE.

I see clinging-to-evolution as merely a way to "justify" sinful behavior. If there's no One to answer to (a Creator), you can do whatever you want. That's one of the points of Ben Stein's film: Hitler did the things he did because of Darwinism evolution.

(I find it a bit amazing that Creationism has to be defended here....)

[skylercollins]

As a holder of only a GED (1984), perhaps this only illustrates my ignorance, but IMO, had Darwin understood the complexity of a single CELL--as we know it today--there would have been no Origin of Species. Likewise with his non-knowledge of DNA.

This is an interesting statement since the discovery and study of DNA has strengthened Darwin's position. Prior to DNA, scientists compared body parts and what not to trace relationships between species. Since DNA, they've been able to do so more accurately on a genetic level.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how "nature" knew to evolve the EYE.

I'm not sure nature knows anything, and that's not what organic evolution is about. What it's about is that when an organism has a random mutation in some part of it's DNA, and that mutation increases the organisms chance of survival, then it has a greater chance of passing it to it's offspring and so on and so forth. The evolution of the eye can be traced back to mere photo-receptors and what not, as I understand it.

I see clinging-to-evolution as merely a way to "justify" sinful behavior. If there's no One to answer to (a Creator), you can do whatever you want. That's one of the points of Ben Stein's film: Hitler did the things he did because of Darwinism evolution.

I don't know who's "clinging" to evolution as if it's your mother's leg. There are those scientists who are also atheists and bend evolution to mean something it doesn't in regards to the existence of God. Then there are those believing scientists that see evolution differently, in that it is probably the means by which God created and populated this planet with life, culminating in the evolution of physical man.

(I find it a bit amazing that Creationism has to be defended here....)

Thanks for the generalization. You realize that organic evolution, and not Intelligent Design theory, is taught at BYU, right?

Edited November 30, 2008 by skylercollins

[foodstr2]

You win. I surrender. My god is not powerful enough to speak the universe/world into being. Long live Darwin. Thank Whoever for "higher education".

Bruce

[Guest Godless]

As a holder of only a GED (1984), perhaps this only illustrates my ignorance, but IMO, had Darwin understood the complexity of a single CELL--as we know it today--there would have been no Origin of Species. Likewise with his non-knowledge of DNA.

Several of Darwin's original theories are today considered to be horribly outdated precisely because of our knowledge in the areas of genetics and biochemistry. His basic theory of natural selection, however, has only been enhanced through advances in the aforementioned fields.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how "nature" knew to evolve the EYE.

4.5 billion years is a LONG time. Environmental influences and genetic traits necessary to survival gradually led to the development of basic sensory functions. These functions, once initiated, have continued to develop and perfect themselves over a period of hundreds of millions of years.

I see clinging-to-evolution as merely a way to "justify" sinful behavior. If there's no One to answer to (a Creator), you can do whatever you want. That's one of the points of Ben Stein's film: Hitler did the things he did because of Darwinism evolution.

Interestingly enough, there is no documentation or other such evidence to suggest that Hitler was a Darwinist, or even an atheist for that matter. In fact, many sources cite him as being a Catholic. That's quite irrelevent though. The fact that a very small number of people MAY have tried to use natural selection as an excuse for evil deeds doesn't make it any less valid as a scientific theory.

You win. I surrender. My god is not powerful enough to speak the universe/world into being. Long live Darwin. Thank Whoever for "higher education".

Why limit yourself to such black-and-white thinking? Your God allegedly invented all of the scientific laws of the universe, correct? Wouldn't that include the laws and functions that govern evolution? Open your mind a bit.

[foodstr2]

Not sure *I'm* the one who needs to open his mind. I believed in the THEORY of evolution for years. Then someone showed me that the Bible was an historical record, not just a book of fairy tales.

I see that you've not seen Ben Stein's Expelled, because he shows Hitler's use of Darwinism to justify his slaughters.

Disprove for me the historicity of the Bible, and I'll revert to atheism and believing in Darwin's fantasy. The Bible clearly states that the world/universe was SPOKEN into existence by God ... not just in Genesis, but throughout the Books.

See Biblical - Evolution. So You Think Evolution is Biblical?

I still stand amazed that this needs to be defended on THIS forum.

But, I've already surrendered, given up. YOU WIN, remember? You have no Faith. You have "Science".

You don't need God....

I wish you the best!