At 11:53 PM 7/4/99 +0100, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>(2) Science does not recognise the supernatural.
Scientists who are christians, like members of this list, do recognized the
supernatural. So this can not be used as a reason to reject what your
brothers in the Lord say.
On the other hand,
>Christians will know that our earthly existence has a supernatural
>dimension - indeed, they can personally testify to encountering the
>'spiritual warfare' on a daily basis. Is it reasonable, then, that in
>what nowadays appears to have become something of a reflex reaction,
>Christians should always 'bend the knee' to science? - allow it to
>become the principal arbiter in deciding matters of fundamental truth?
>Can 'science' ever equate with 'reality'?
Science can not define the totality of reality, but what it does define is
as certain as anything can be in this world. Is the sky purple with pink
polkadots? Is the ocean made of lemonade? You know these are false
statements because of scientific observations. So, scientific observation
is needed even in everyday life when you don't call it scientific.
To interpret the Bible in a fashion that makes the laws of nature plastic
and irrational implies that the Creator is untrustworthy in what he has
made. This seems to undermine the entire reason for believing the Bible.
Should we expect God to honour
>the 'Laws of Nature' and 'scientific observation' when these today are
>being used by so many to question His Being, His Sovereignty, and His
>interest in, and involvement with His creation - man, in particular?
Vernon, God will honor the laws He made because GOD is trustworthy, not
because mankind is trustworthy. God knows that we aren't trustworthy and
so if he changed the rules everytime we were untrustworthy then God would
have to change the rules about salvation daily. God created the Laws of
Nature, for our good. And because God Himself is trustworthy we can trust
His laws. And because we can trust His laws, we can trust logical
deductions from those laws. Why do you think God is not trustworthy?
I
>regard it as significant that He has promised to 'destroy the wisdom of
>the wise' (Is.29:14), and 'to have them in derision'(Ps.2:4).
Considering that science was not in existence when those verses were
written have you ever considered the possibility that the 'wise' might
refer to those who think themselves morally wise?
>
>(3) Something real and common to the human condition (and specified by
>the Scriptures!) is the phenomenon of 'cognitive dissonance' ('CD'
>hereafter). This results when a person is confronted by ideas or facts
>that are at odds with his pre-existing notions; psychologists recognise
>it has the power to distort or even block perception.
I am delighted that you brought this up. When I was a young-earth
creationist and a believer in the global flood, I was living a life full of
cognitive dissonance. I knew (as you have admitted) that the scientific
data didn't support what I was believing. That, as you so correctly
define, is the very essence of congnitive dissonance. I believed the
global flood IN SPITE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE AGAINST IT. I would suggest that
you take a look deep inside and consider if that might apply to you as it
once did to me.
As an example, in
>the film "2001 - A SPACE ODYSSEY", the discovery of a large, smooth,
>domino-shaped slab with perfect right-angles suggests to the viewing
>audience that the universe contains intelligent life other than man.
>People agreed unanimously that this was conclusive proof of
>intelligence, for the intelligence that was implied was not God. No CD
>here! At the end of the film, a human embryo fills the screen -
>something at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to the level of
>design present in a domino-shaped slab! Were it not for CD God's
>existence should be intuitively obvious.
Were it not for CD the futility of the global flood would be equally obvious.
>
>I have met the problem of CD at first hand as a reaction to my drawing
>attention to the 'standing miracle' of Genesis 1:1. To my intense
>surprise, even Christians are unable to accept that God would (or
>could!) do such a thing.
It is always amazing to me that no one ever thinks that cognitive
dissonance might apply to themselves. It always applies to other people.
In my case, as a YEC, it applied to me.
>Finally, regarding the matter of the Flood, I see little point in
>reiterating my understanding of its global nature. Bearing in mind its
>stated purpose (viz a 'biological clean out', to be followed by a
>restocking of planet Earth), none of the 'devices' suggested for
>avoiding these clear intentions carry any real weight or conviction -
>and they shouldn't satisfy those who love truth!
>
At the very first of your note, you wrote:
"I believe it appropriate that I set out a background for my
belief that - notwithstanding scientific evidence (real or imagined) to
the contrary - the event devastated the whole Earth."
The fact that you believe, notwithstanding the scientific evidence to the
contrary' is precisely the definition of cognitive dissonance you gave.
Look within.