Re: Is it soup yet? #2

Stephen Jones (sjones@iinet.net.au)
Mon, 01 Apr 96 22:39:03 EST

Brian

On Fri, 22 Mar 1996 00:57:17 -0500 (EST) you wrote:

[...]

BH> From: <Truth: An International, Inter-Disciplinary
> Journal of Christian Thought> Volume 1 (1985).
>
> [http://www.iclnet.org/clm/truth/1truth18c.html]
>

Thanks for YAU (yet another URL)! :-)

BH> Message from Professor Hubert Yockey

[...]

BH> Science, religion and literature are all legitimate paths to
> truth. Literature and religion have belief systems which are
> different, and in a sense opposite from those of science.
> The truth in literature lies outside the methods of science.
> The poet says: "the bird of time has but a little way to
> flutter and the bird is on the wing." The scientist says:
> "Time is not a bird and the wing is an appendage on the bird,
> not the other way around."

To a great extent this is true - but there is an overlap, most notably
in the issue of *origins*. I have no brief for "religion" in general,
but I do have for the *Christian* religion. The Christian religion
claims to be based on a series of unique and special revelation of
God, culminating in God Himself taking on humanity in the Person of
Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1). The Bible makes few claims about scientific
matters, but those it does make, must take the priority over science.
For example, if physics says the universe is eternal, if psychology
says there is no such thing as sin, or is neuroscience says there is
no such thing as a soul. In such cases, the Bible is right and
science is wrong.

BH> Scientific beliefs are never absolute. Doubt is a virtue in
> science and many theories, thought to have been well established,
> were replaced because tiny discrepancies led to the unraveling
> of the whole structure of the theory. Faith, on the other hand,
> plays a central role in religion. The conflict between literature
> and religion, on one hand, and science on the other, would be
> resolved if proponents of both realized this difference in
> belief systems. The new journal, Truth, can play a useful role in
> establishing a dialogue. We may be surprised how many scientists
> are really talking religion and how many theologians are talking
> science.

The first question for this forum is, "Is God real or a figment of our
imagination"? Johnson begins RITB with this question as foundational
to all discussions of "religion" and "science":

"Is God the true creator of everything that exists, or is God a
product of the human imagination, real only in the minds of those who
believe? This book is about how people answer that question, and the
consequences of answering it one way or another....If God really does
exist, then to lead a rational life a person has to take account of
God and his purposes. A person or a society that ignores the Creator
is ignoring the most important part of reality, and to ignore reality
is to be irrational. That is why the Bible says the fear of the Lord
is the beginning of wisdom. The most influential intellectuals in
America and around the world are mostly naturalists, who assume that
God exists only as an idea in the minds of religious believers. In
our greatest universities, naturalism-the doctrine that nature is "all
there is" - is the virtually unquestioned assumption that underlies
not only natural science but intellectual work of all kinds. If
naturalism is true, then humankind created God-not the other way
around. In that case, rationality requires that we recognize the
Creator as the imaginary being he always has been, and that we rely
only on things that are real, such as ourselves and the material world
of nature. Reliance on the guidance of an imaginary supernatural
being is called superstition." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the
Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, pp7-8)

God bless.

Steve

----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------