>>>We have an intellect and can recognize it in other humans. Why does it
>>>require such complicated mathematics to describe nature? Only "intelligent"
>>>people understand such a profound description of nature. Intelligence does
>>>not come into existence out of the vacuum, therefore, there must be
>>>intelligence behind the creation. It can never be self-evident to me that
>>>human intellect comes out of nonrational matter.
>>
>>We cannot talk about anything "behind" creation only about what God shows
>us in creation and Scripture. Anything we do more than what God shows us
>is speculation. Intelligence is a human characteristic, created by God.
>For my feeling giving God a characteristic derived from human beings is
>insulting God. To say "We have legs to walk so God must have legs" becomes
>nonosense. God is everywhere, also in our brains, but we are made
>responsible for our thinking. In the Bible we are told that all our
>faculties are affected by sin. To compare God now to our sinful
>intelligence is not possible.
I use the word "behind" the creation in the same sense that Scripture says
that God sustains the creation. That is, there is something or someone which
transcends Nature. The development of theory in science is human
speculation. There are some areas where such speculations are useful, and
there are many more where human speculation is useless. The conception men
have of God is commensurate with their reasoning ability. We create models
of God which are humanly understood. Aliens from other plants will have
different conceptions of God. We know good from evil and we say God is good.
Of course, God proved He is good and loves us because He sent His Son.
Similarly, we know God reasons because we reason. Of course, sin adds an
aberration to our conceptions but we can correct such aberrations with the
Word of God.
>>>Not in the pursuit of knowledge of the physical universe. I clearly
>>>indicated that such a pursuit is not the most important form of knowledge
>>>that man needs for daily life. Man must know himself and that is only
>>>accomplished by knowing Jesus Christ.
>>
>>Faith is the most important part indeed, but that faith guides us in all
>our knowledge and in daily life. If you start making a separation between
>different kind of knowledges, you split your life in two parts, one where
>you listen to God, and one where you decide what God might have done. Any
>science, and that includes theology, is no more than listening to God, and
>trying to describe God's works. I believe that it is very dangerous for
>you and your listener's faith life if you want to divide life and knowledge
>in two parts.
Man creates different kinds of knowledge as a division of labor and finitude
of the human mind and brain. All these kinds of knowledges must be
integrated by metaphysical assumptions. Us Christians use one set of
assumptions, atheists use others, etc.
>>>I believe that the more "science" you know the closer it brings you to God.
>>>But atheists can be excellent scientists. The pursuit of scientific truths
>>>is amoral. This is certainly true in physics. However, there are areas where
>>>one deals with living beings where the pursuit of scientific truths may not
>>>be totally amoral.
>>
>>It is impossible to do science and not making moral decisions as well.
>Think of the developping of the atom bomb. For any human being it
>impossible not to be a morally reponsible being. Doing any science cannot
>be outside our human life. That unbelievers have eyes and a thinking mind
>does not mean that they are always not obeying God's commands. I referred
>you before to the OT stories, where God calls heathen nations to punish
>Israel. And Christians confess that they always and everywhere need God's
>grace, no matter what they are doing. If you don't believe that you are
>only partially a Christian.
The development of the knife could have been initially as a weapon but its
future use can be for peaceful purposes. There are decisions that people
make which are not moral--do I wear the red shirt or the blue one. When I
sit down to do mathematical calculations, I do not consciously obey God's
command except in the sense that I ought to labor. I do know, however, that
my reasoning ability, my instant by instant existence is due to God. Is the
fish conscious of the water that surrounds it?
>>>Besides being a professor of physics, I am a husband, father, brother,
>>>uncle, etc. in such matter science has little to say. I rely on the Word of
>>>God to fulfill such roles. When scientists who are Christians talk about
>>>science, they need not talk about God. At least, that is the case in
>>>physics. I do not know about biologists. I suppose if you are discussing
>>>issues of origins, then God must certainly come ultimately into the picture.
>>>I am very much interested in the integration of science and Christianity. It
>>>is clear to be that both pursuits will lead to God. But there is no sense of
>>>speculating on issues that man is not ready to answer. Most of our
>>>discussions are helpful so that we can intelligently discuss some issues
>>>with non Christians. I learn a lot from the discussions of others in
>>>scientific areas that I am not knowledgable.
>>
>>To answer this part of the discussion requires more time than we have.
>Still, I will try to say something. In the first place, as a professor of
>physics you are a father etc. as well. That you listen to the Word of God
>in those roles is great. When teaching mathematics I listened to the Word
>of God as well as when I discuss matters with my children and the rest of
>the family. I try not to live in two different worlds. When I had a
>student in my office having difficulties with his faith, because of what he
>had to learn, I prayed with him. I agree with you that there is no sense
>in speculating on issues that man is not ready to answer. That is one
>reason that I do not want to speculate about God's intelligence. That God
>rules I will always say, but I am not going to "jufge" God's knowledge,
>actions etc. We have to just accept them.
I am teaching mathematical physics this semester and I must be honest with
myself and state that I am not conscious whether I listen to the Word of God
in this role or not. Of course, my relations with students, etc. is dictated
by my Christian faith. To ascribe reasoning ability to God is not to judge
God's knowledge.
>>>Most people in the world could care less about science. Nevertheless their
>>>concern deals with questions that a more important than scientific
>>>questions. Issues of grief, love, hate, meaning, pursue, etc. have nothing
>>>to do with science. Therein lies the importance of the Word of God.
>>
>>Here you are again limiting the importance of the Word of God, in nature
>as well as in the Bible.
>>God created the world, ergo God wants us to know about His world. That
>most people don't care about science is not an argument. Meaning cannot be
>explored without studying. Grief, love, hate, meaning, pursue etc. have to
>be "studied" as well, and are thus part of science. They are even causing
>physical reactions in living beings. I don't think that you can divide a
>human being in a mathematical, physical, theological, psychical, logical,
>etc. part, even though these are all separate areas for research, that need
>each other. Your Intelligent Designer idea is a mixture of physical and
>theological knowledge. I reject your conclusions, but you cannot say that
>it is purely physical, or purely theological.
>>
>>Jan de Koning
>>Willowdale, Ont.
I believe you misread what I write. The real importance of God's Word lies
outside science. The study of science is works and what reconciles us with
God through Christ is faith. I do not divide a human being into parts. That
is done by men in order to study man. The serious study of nature leads to
either a transcendent being which brings the whole thing into constant
existence or else to nothingness. For me, the latter is nonsensical.
Take care,
Moorad