Re: Response to Moorad and Dr. Jack

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:33:38 -0500 (CDT) "Roger G. Olson"
<rogero@saintjoe.edu> writes:
> Note: I had inadvertentdly sent this response only to Dr. Jack Syme,
> when
> I in fact had intended it for public consumption. This is a caveat
> to all
> here of the "reply" and "reply all" features of an e-mail server.
>
> God's Peace,
>
> Roger
>
> ----------------------------------
> Dr. Jack,
>
> I won't misquote you, if you won't misquote me. However, please
> help out
> this poor "fool." And, I'm a confused fool at that -- and that's
> the
> worst kind!
>
> My comments/answers are interspersed below.
>
>
> > Please dont misquote me, or misinterpret me Roger, as you seem to
> be so
> > willing to do, I am not a YECer.
>
>
> I didn't think you were. Moorad is apparently YEC. Give me a
> little credit.
>
>
> > But this comment of yours:
> >
> > "using our human reason (which I believe to be a gift from God)
> > to come to a tentative conclusion now. The overwhelming evidence
> of a
> > careful examination of nature via the inductive-empirical method
> of
> > science ..."
> >
> > if not qualified by an attitude of humility, and recognization of
> Man's
> > limitations and fallibility, limitations which extend both to the
> realm of
> > understanding science and scripture, is clearly a
> > humanistic/natuaralistic
> > attitude, not a Christian one. In fact this comment sounds
> surprising
> > coming from a scientist in the early 21st century.
>
>
> Do you believe that God created a universe with the ability to be
> studied
> by His creatures? Or do believe that He holds back selective
> knowledge and
> thus "tricks" us poor slobs into thinking things are different than
> they
> appear?
>
>
>
> > Whether or not you agree with Moorad's views completely or not, if
> you
> > think
> > that science is going to give you all of the answers, you are a
> fool. I
> > didnt think that Moorad was saying that "science had not caught up
> with
> > the
> > Bible yet," but that there are limitations to what we can know.
> >
> > I hope you dont really think that with reason alone, Man can
> understand
> > all
> > things, I hope I am misinterpreting you.
>
> Thanks for the "fool" thing, that's really sweet of you. What gave
> you
> the impression that I thought that "science is going to give me all
> the
> the answers?" With regards to the age of Earth and Cosmos, science
> has
> given us *enough* answers to conclude that both of these are
> billions (not
> thousands, not millions, not trillions) of years old, and that there
> has
> been a change in the biosphere over time, and that there is no
> consistent
> evidence of a "literal" reading of Genesis 1-11, including no
> evidence for
> a global deluge.
>
> If you mean that I think that via scientific method we can figure
> "everything" out, including the spiritual nature of humanity (and a
> fortiori of God), then, yes, you are misinterpreting me. I never
> implied
> anything of the sort.
>
>
> >
> > But, I also think that Moorad's comment was a reasonable one, and
> not
> > drivel
> > (which I agree was too harsh of a term) . Being finite I dont
> think we
> > will ever understand everything even once we are sanctified. But
> how can
> > you defend your position that finite and sinful Man, can ever be
> able to
> > comprehend everything through reason alone?
> >
> > Jack Syme MD
> >
>
>
> Ok, Doc, my apologies to Moorad and everyone else for the "drivel"
> comment. Apparently I misinterpreted what he wrote. If he were
> implying that God could have created with an appearance of deep time
> and
> common descent, then, yes, that would have been "drivel." I'll give
> him
> the benefit of the doubt that he meant something else.
>
> On a related theme, I'd like to hear your comments as a physician on
> the
> efficacy of scientific method vis-a-vis trusting God. I have the
> utmost
> respect for medical professionals who include prayer as part of
> their
> practive, both for the patient and for wisdom for giving the proper
> treatment. This is an excellent example of the coming together of
> science
> and reason.
>
> However, I was just wondering -- and I'm really speaking off the
> cuff here
> --- what if when you get to Heaven and see the big picture, you find
> out
> that you would have been better off simply praying for your
> patients? I
> mean the scientific method is merely a human construct, far inferior
> to
> scriptural revelation, and healing power of the Divine is certainly
> superior to that of human construct -- to all that scientific
> business you
> learned in med. school. Maybe you and your professors were being
> misled
> into thinking your knowledge obtained from the scientific method
> were
> effective when really it was a red herring distracting from the real
> healing power of God?
>
> This is a weak and stupid analogy to be sure, and my apologies if it
> offends, but it does bear some similarity to the Origins issue.
> Maybe
> scientists are all wrong -- maybe, just maybe, Earth and Cosmos were
> created a few thousands of years ago by a god who delights in
> deceiving a
> very small minority of people in the 21st century? Then, continuing
> the
> medical analogy, maybe you will discover that you have been wasting
> hundreds of thousands of dollars of patients' and insurance
> carriers'
> dough on these fancy medical treatments, EMGs and the like, when you
> could
> have just prayed for you patients?
>
> We have to be consistent in our view of Faith and Reason, afterall.
>
> God's Peace,
>
> Roger
>
Well, Roger, when you drive a nail by praying it in--I won't go so far as
to say that you have to cut the timber and complete the structure by
prayer or other incantation--, I'll consider that Jack should treat his
patients by prayer rather than by potions, pills and surgery. Sure,
anything which isn't contradictory is possible, but depending on some
possibilities is incredibly stupid. Trust in God in addition to medical
treatment is another matter that goes beyond human knowledge. I think of
a pastor diagnosed some years back with dispersed carcinoma (I think
that's the correct terminology, but it may be disseminated) who lost
about everything the surgeons could take, was helped by chemotherapy, but
now receives no further treatment because there's nothing the doctors
know to do. However, the remaining malignancy is not growing and he
continues to preach even though he is physically very weak. It's either a
medical anomaly or the power of prayer by some of God's children.
Dave
Received on Tue Oct 26 00:36:49 2004