I agree with you that origins - specifically whether God created the
universe and all life/things within it - is not something science can
answer. Even Stephen Jay Gould (a self-proclaimed "agnostic Jew") says this.
It was my understanding that most scientists agree with this, and only the
fringe think otherwise, but maybe that is incorrect?
Can somebody give a good definition for "philosphical materialism" ? Do you
just mean the philosophy that evolution (or whatever) disproves the
existence of a Creator?
I believe that God has given us freedom to pursue our own intellectual
pursuits and interests, but we can't expect to really be doing God's will
unless these pursuits line up with the Bible (or at least don't contradict
it). Studying origins and theology is great for this life and earth, but is
it promoting the cause of Christ? Someone else said this same thing (I think
Glenn?)
Theology really gets the "church" nowhere, since the people who were most
well-studied in Jesus' time (Pharisees) were typically the most incorrect in
their understanding. (Remember, Jesus said in a moment of joy that is was
God's pleasure to hide things from the learned and show them to little
children). That is not necessarily children in the age sense, but that
non-theologically oriented Christians can have greater servant's hearts than
the most learned. And becoming very intellectual and having lots of degrees
tends to inflate one's ego rather than promote humility. Power and money are
very similar that way.
Why is origins so important? I'm curious what you think.
I believe that we don't need to "Defend" God, or even Jesus. I've seen a
statistic that some 80% of the world's people believe in a Creator and God.
Sorting out Truth is more difficult. Truth, when seen clearly, stands on its
own. When we show the message of Christ with clarity and humility, God's
seed won't come back ungerminated! Jesus said so himself.
My best,
Wendee
>I have no qualms with what you are saying, but there is a time for
>everything. People ought to know where we stand, we should not be ashamed of
>our faith. However, on the question of origins we have to go to the
>foundation, which is whether the question of origins is indeed a scientific
>question or not. Some assume that it is, I assume that it is not. Herein
>lies the philosophical discussion that Phil Johnson keeps emphasizing.