>[...]
>
>>Great Father of glory, pure Father of light,
>>Thine angels adore Thee, all veiling their sight;
>>All praise we would render: O help us to see
>>'Tis only the splendor of light hideth Thee.
>
>>It would be interesting to find all the Scripture this one refers to --
>>there's quite a bit.
>
>The Baptist Hymn Book, gives "1 Tim. i. 17" as the scripture
>reference:
>
>1Tim 1:17 "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only
>wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen."
>
>>I love it all, but especialy note the last line of the last stanza.
>
>Yes. The theistic sentiments expressed seem as far removed from the
>assumptions and world-view of materialistic-naturalist science as one
>could imagine. I wonder if those scientists who are Christians really
>appreciate this difference?
I can think of no a priori reason to think not.
I presume that you pose this question from certain conclusions you have made
from the tone of the discussion on this reflector. Generally speaking, much
of the debate seems to be between those (often scientists) willing to
embrace some "naturalistic" model of origins and those (often
non-scientists) who seem not to like any such model. Therefore, if this is
the basis for your question above, it seems to me to be perfectly reasonable
to pose the inverse question: I wonder if those who dislike any
naturalistic model of origins fully appreciate how God's glory is revealed
through the creation?
I am only making a rhetorical point here and do not intend for that question
to reflect my personal belief. However, if I understand your question, it
seems to come awfully close to stating a position of orthodoxy by which the
strength of one's faith may be judged.
Because I spend most of my time on this reflector debating one side of the
issue does not mean that I do not appreciate the fullness of God, or that I
do not appreciate the problems with so-called naturalistic materialism. In
another forum you would hear me vigorously debate the assumptions and logic
of those who say science disproves the existence of God and proves a
purposless universe. This reflector seems to have plenty of critics who do
a sufficiently good job of that. However, what I sometimes see from such
(not all) critics, is exactly what they criticize naturalists of doing,
which is being willing to only consider certain types of interpretations of
the data, and using fuzzy logic to support preconceived positions. For this
reason, perhaps, you would think that I, as a scientist, would not
appreciate the hiddenness of God.
What we debate here is, in fact, the hiddenness and mystery of God and ways
in which it can be understood. I see no reason then to think that, based on
one's philosophical position in this debate, that they would not appreciate
this side of the Creator.
If I remember correctly, when Rutherford's lab made important discoveries,
he would lead a procession of his people around the laboratory singing
Onward Christian Soldiers. As a scientist, I view it as great privelege to
be able to explore a small part of the Creation and uncover a little more of
the character of God. What I do in my lab is a form of worship and
naturalism is not automatically anathema to faith.
Shalom,
Steve
____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin "It is the glory of God to conceal a
Madison, WI 53792 matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter."
____________________________________________________________________________