On Sun, 28 May 1995 22:24:12 -0500 you wrote:
>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.
>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.
On re-reading this (and from the private response I got!), perhaps
this question of mine was too hasty. I was merely wondering if the
influence of the materialistic-naturalist scientific world-view made
it difficult for scientists who are Christians to fully appreciate the
Biblical theistic world view. I made no assertion that they don't, but
it would be dishonest of me to say I no longer "wonder" about this.
>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?
Perhaps they don't.
>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.
No. It is just a question that I ask, for you to conisder or reject. I
don't presume to define "orthodoxy".
>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.
I make no assertion about individuals.
>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.
Fine. It was just a question. Ignore or reject it.
>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.
I did not say that it was.
Steve. My question was an honest one and I don't resile from it. It
is a view that I daresay occurs to many Christian laymen who consider
the views of their scientists brothers. It was not intended to apply
to any particular individual. What I say is only what others have
said. For example, read Ramm, (Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science
and Scripture", 1955, Paternoster, London, pp36ff), "Why Theologians
and Scientists Have Conflicts", especially p38f "Mistakes Peculiar to
Scientists". I will scan same and post it when I get time.
God bless.
Stephen