First I must deal with my rash statement above. I have a B.A. in History,
B.S. and M.S. in Geology (primarily sedimentology, paleontology, and
geomorphology); my thesis project involved mapping the Quaternary geology in
the Spokane Valley and Rathdrum Prairie in Idaho and Washington (glacial
outburst flooding was a dominant agent there). Presently, I'm working on a
Ph.D. project (in Geology) at U. of Iowa (a Holocene palynology project)
where my main course work was in ecology, palynology, botany, and vertebrate
paleontology.
While working for the M.S. in Geology, I also took course work for a M.A. in
Anthro. (primarily prehistory, paleoanthropology, and archeology), but a
turn over in facility and a change in departmental emphasis ended that goal.
Prehistory, paleoanthropology, theology and philosophy are major "hobbies"
but I have put in approximately equal time studying these topics as I have
those in which I earned degrees.
>I appreciate your position, and agree that the problems with almost all
>harmonisations are immense. I also agree that convincing the skeptic is
>futile, but apologetics is not for evangelism but for discipleship. It is
>to prevent people from leaving the faith.
Whose apologetics are acceptable for preventing "people from leaving the
faith?"
Discipleship requires a childlike faith not apologetics.
>It is because of my view of truth and falsity that I believe that a
>harmonization is essential.
I believe this is part of the problem, in order for there to be
harmonization both faith and science would need to agree on "truth and
falsity." They cannot because they originate from different sources.
Science is based on the rules of western thought and experience (a human
source). Our Christian faith is based on our acceptance of the truth of
God's revelation, via The Holy Spirit on us using scripture, church
tradition, and our personal experiences.
Truth is based on God. Science knows nothing of truth; at best it can only
verify or deny a hypothesis. I believe the best that human thought (unaided
by the Spirit) can do is summarized by Pilate when he asked "what is truth?"
>Furthermore, if the God of the universe is unwilling or unable to somehow
>convey a simple but true account of the creation via inspiration of the
>Biblical writers, then several things follow.
>
>1. He isn't very powerful or
>2. He isn't willing to tell us the true story. These follow from:
>
>If God is unwilling but able to convey a true historical account of the
>creation then He is not truthful, allowing thousands over the years to
>believe the scientifically false Scriptural account.
>
>If God is willing but unable, He is impotent and thus not God.
>
>If God is unable and unwilling, He is evil and impotent
>
>Only if God is willing and able to convey to humanity a true, historical
>account, is God a supreme, loving, being.
>
>The third thing which follows from the lack of a historically true account is:
>3.Is there any certainty that a God who is unable or unwilling to convey to
>us the story of creation suddenly IS ABLE to convey the true story about the
>resurrection? (also via inspiration of Biblical writers). The historicity of
>the resurrection is critical to Christianity and if God shows himself to be
>faithless in other areas, why should I believe this story.
I don't accept that either our concept of history or our understanding of
how the cosmos works are applicable to the message God was addressing to us
in the scriptural account. Just as we must take a leap of faith in applying
the rules of logic and science, so we must take a leap of faith if we are
going to believe God's message to us.
>Ask yourself this: If every event in the Bible had been historically
>disproved except the resurrection, would you believe the resurrection?
It is only because I believe in the resurrection of God's Messiah, that I
accept the rest.
>Now ask: How much inaccuracy and false history are you willing to put up with
>to remain a believer? Can 90% of the events be historically false? 80%,
>60%...??? Historical veracity is important to the claim of divine
inspiration.
I may not be able to harmonize 100% of it, but I still believe my Father.
Historical veracity is important for my accepting a historian interpretation
of the events of the Battle of New Oleans, but not my belief in the
resurrection, creation, or anything else in scripture. My faith in
Scriptural statements are based on my belief that God is trustworthy. Not
on the interpretations of a historian, geologist, or archeologist.
>Before you say that I am requiring every event (even the poetry) to be true,
>I am not. There is a certain level of problematical events I am willing to
>accept, but my limit is not very high. If I beleive that the historical
>inaccuracy of the Bible was as bad as the book of Mormon, I would not be a
>Christian.
So you want to pick and choose, that's convenient!
It's not the historical inaccuracy of the Book of Morman that I see as the
problem, it is the incompatibility of the Morman Christ with the Messiah of
the Old Testament and the Christ of the New which is the problem. Also, I
see no compelling reason to accept Mormonism for my salvation but if
Christianity is correct, faith in the New Testament Christ is essential.
In response to other faiths, C.S. Lewis often noted in his writings that all
religions contain elements of the message of Christianity, but Christianity
surprisingly fulfills and completes the message of God (my paraphrase).
>A dichotomy as you describe (science things which are verifiable and faith
>things which aren't) is a dichotomy that I find unacceptable. It leads one
>to being able to believe contradictory things. Science can be believed and
>religious things can be believed even if they absolutely contradict each
>other. If I must simply accept faith things by faith with little evidential
>support, why should I not believe that David Kouresh is the Messiah, or that
>the Heaven's gate leader really lead his people to the UFO? If all I have
>to do is merely believe, then there is no limit to what I am allowed to
>believe. The buddhist can say that all we have to do is believe, the moslem
>can say that all we have to do is believe. Can we believe all these
>contradictory things simultaneously? Having moslems and mormons in my
>extended family makes me see that when they tell me I must simply believe in
>Allah and his prophet or Joseph Smith's writings (regardless of the
>evidence) they are doing the same thing you are advocating above.
I don't deny that most leaps people take are into the abyss. That is why we
have been given the Great Commission and that is why we pray that the Holy
Spirit will work within the lost. Apologetics may work for you, it never
has for me.
In the end, dichotomy is all we have. Our choice is either "curse God and
die" or "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."
> Belief does not make things true. Evidence makes things true. Evidence is
>important.
Evidence doesn't make anything "true". You have taken a leap into believing
you can interpreted truth and then verify it. Truth can only be found in
faith in our God, the God of Truth and Love.
>. . .
I hope what I have written is understandable, I usually prefer to mull over
my writing for atleast a week before I release it, I'm sorry I don't have
the time to do that now.
In Him,
John
**********************************
John P. McKiness
P.O. Box 5666
Coralville, Iowa (U.S.A.) 52241
jmckines@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
**********************************