Come, Let Us Reason Together – Part 3
by Bill Cook
Of course, this is seemingly not the position that the IUB (intelligent unbelievers) would anticipate the Christian to take. They seem to think that we would cower in the face of anything scientific, most likely because that is into what they take their comfort. That is where their faith (again, an intentional use of a religious term) lies. No, we revel in each new scientific ‘discovery’ because they always confirm and strengthen the faith of the Christian…or they should. They show that there was a cause of the universe, that there is evidence for design, that everything exists in such tight parameters that the reasonable solution is God. It makes the idea of evolution to be more unreasonable.
More so, most of the time it is these new discoveries that are announced with such vigor that are actually corrections of previous assumptions or hypotheses. How many times have we seen throughout our history that what ‘science’ knew was true was later shown to be false? There was a time when ‘science’ knew the world was flat. But, the Bible proclaimed that it was round for much longer.
22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. Isaiah 40:22 (NASB95)
Just about 100 years ago it was science that thought the Milky Way galaxy was the universe. Now, we know that many galaxies exist. It was science that also believed that the known universe was static and eternal. Einstein’s theory of relativity showed among many other things that the universe had very unique qualities that defied modern scientific thought. And, yet the Christian has no qualms in letting science catch up. Consider more from Isaiah.
26 Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars, The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power, Not one of them is missing…
28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable. Isaiah 40:26, 28 (NASB95)
But, in modern times, many in the scientific community have given a collective sigh for in all their efforts to disprove creation, they have only succeeded in affirming it more strongly than ever. In 1992 the agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow wrote in his book, God and the Astronomers,
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
This is why it is easy for the Christian to echo the words of the writer of the book of Hebrews,
“By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” Hebrews 11:3 (NASB95)
Christianity is not a belief system based on imaginings of madmen as some suppose. It is one based upon sound judgment and reasonable arguments designed to persuade Men. How is it that history records so many followers of Christ in the first century? Not because of mass coercion or the drinking of medieval Kool-Aid. It was because reasonable arguments for a belief in Christ were put forth for Man’s consideration. Consider the historical accounts in the book of Acts. The Apostle Paul, in a missionary journey, visited a synagogue of the Jews in Thessalonica…
“And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.” Acts17:2-4 (NASB95)
Later, when Paul came to Corinth…
“After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them, and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers. And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.” (Acts 18:1-4, NASB95)
If you read the following verses from Acts 18, you will see that Paul really tried to convince the Jews, and they resisted. You see, it was up to individuals then, as it is today, to decide for oneself. There is no magic spell that forces one to believe. True Christians are not mind-numbed robots; they are reasoning, thinking people. The same gospel was preached in both cities, but some were persuaded in Thessalonica and many were not persuaded in Corinth.
If it was the intent of the gospel writers or Christians today to show that every time the gospel is preached, a positive response always observed, we would be dishonest, deceptive and would hide this from the reader. But, the gospel is about an honest, reasonable response.
Read MoreCome, Let Us Reason Together – Part 2
by Bill Cook
Interestingly, once we had drawn our conclusions, it was accepted that we would believe our results. No one was expected to deny the existence of the ‘truth’ of our conclusions. That is, if we were to test for bromides in our sample, it was accepted that if I got a reaction of a white cloudy precipitate (or whatever the reaction was supposed to be for that particular anion-it has been a long time since that class!) that I would agree that it was a substance that contained bromides. There was not a possibility that I might say I did not believe that there were bromides present. It was accepted that once I was confronted with the evidence that I would believe that it had bromides.
The expectation that I would just automatically agree that the sample had bromides since the evidence seemed to indicate it is something that bears investigation. Where did this expectation come from? Is it irrational to expect that behavior from another as it is expected of me?
Could it be that the more intelligent people become, the easier it becomes to forge new belief systems? Could it be that the more intelligent people become, the more they trust in self and not on another? Could it be that the more intelligent one becomes, the easier it is to deceive others about one’s own belief system; that perhaps, it is they, who wish to hide among the elites, who do so under the guise of intelligence? I don’t think this is true in all cases. Making generalizations can be a dangerous activity. But, I would submit that the Telegraph article seems to indicate that the intelligent unbelievers tend to congregate (I used this word intentionally) at institutions of higher learning. I submit that they have an agenda, a purpose, a motive-to ‘preach’ unbelief to the masses (oops another religious term)-the typical college student. Where better to spread their ‘doctrine’ of unbelief? I would submit that is they who commit intellectual dishonesty.
But all intelligent unbelievers are not necessarily dishonest. They may still be searching (for truth) and not know it. The scientific community has many ‘champions of unbelief’ (those that the unbelievers would put forth as a champion-those who they would hope represent their ‘cause’). Many of these scientists become quite excited with any new discovery. They may even believe that their discovery would show a non-God explanation to the beginnings of the universe.
Consider the case of George Smoot, noted Nobel Prize winner. He is a brilliant scientist, a physicist. He won the Nobel Prize in physics in 2006 for the discovery a background microwave radiation observed by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE (pronounced ‘coby’)) satellite in 1992. In his Nobel Lecture in 2006, he has quite a different demeanor than when he was first interviewed in 1992 after the discovery. In 1992, he was quoted in newspapers all over the world, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.” Later, while being interviewed by Fred Heeren for the book, Show Me God, Smoot was questioned by Heeren about this statement that was so widely quoted. In this interview, Smoot says,
“…Not only did we find what are the seeds of the modern day structure-and that is the galaxies and clusters of galaxies-but we also found evidence of the birth of the universe, I believe, because I think that if you look at these fluctuations and ask, “How could they have gotten in there?,” some of them are so large-that is, they stretch across billions of light-years back at a very early time-that means they hadn’t changed-if you move matter and energy around at the speed of light, you can only cross a teeny fraction of them. And so these are primordial-they’re in from the moment of creation.
And so it’s really like looking back at creation and seeing the creation of space and time and the universe and everything in it, but also the imperfections of the creation, sort of the fingerprints from the Maker, if you understand what I mean, or the machining marks from the machine that tooled the universe, and those things very neatly turn out to be the things that caused the universe to be very interesting to us; namely, creating galaxies and stars and so on. So, to me, the implications were really quite profound, the idea that not only do we understand where we came from, but those things were actually like the machining marks, the manufacturing marks, from the creation of the universe.”
The Nobel site and the lecture that Smoot gave at Nobel in 2006 is nothing like this. Of course, it is full of scientific jargon which is to be expected. But, the tone is not anything like the tone with Heeren. It is a 54 page pdf if you want to read it. I do not suggest that this is dishonest, just that it is what you would expect when you hear someone speak in front of an audience of unbelievers. Much of the lecture is a recounting of the things he learned along the way which led to the discovery, which is good. It is a scholarly lecture. It is scientific. It is interesting, but it is rather high-level reading. But, the implied thought is that everyone believes in assumptions as fact. That is, they believe the Big Bang is fact. And, that’s fine. I really am not offended at it as some Christians are. To me, it simply demonstrates that Science now admits what Christians have been saying for years-that the universe and everything in it had a definite beginning-something Science has tried to deny for years.
But, I believe it is equally likely that he would not have been allowed to speak in his lecture for long if he had said the things to that group as he did in the interview with Heeren. Smoot knew where the line was and dared not cross it. It is this tendency that is bothersome. Scientists, who claim to be all about what can be proved, being coy. And, yet, for them to even admit that there was a beginning is a big admission for them. The environment that they have to live within, trying to obtain research grants, is highly competitive and political-an environment ripe for tailoring one’s opinions and conclusions to fit a particular point of view. I am not saying dishonestly, but omitting certain things and adding certain things to make points with certain ones in the audience. This is a normal part of speech-making. But, if it is tailored to fit an agenda, that would be cause for concern in other circles. And, he has to maintain interest in his speech and so must omit those things that do not pertain to the subject. Again, I am not suggesting that he did anything dishonestly. But, consider that it took 14 years to be recognized and voted to receive the Nobel. Could it be that he was made to amend certain opinions to be acceptable by the committee?
Many in the scientific community were no doubt thrilled of the discovery because it represented to them a ‘Non-God’ solution to the origin of the universe. But I am thrilled as well. It makes my faith even stronger to know we can see so far in the past and can show that indeed there was a beginning, that the Bible’s account of creation has been corroborated by Science. This no doubt would infuriate many in the scientific community because they would seemingly shout that we are too stupid to realize that this does away with God once and for all. However, I think it makes God more of a problem for them to deal with. Because they also have to admit that the universe was created within such tiny parameters that it had to have a Someone driving that ‘machinery’.
…to be continued
Read MoreCome, Let Us Reason Together- Part 1
by Bill Cook
Sometimes I just can’t resist. I am constantly amazed when I read some things by supposedly intelligent people who write things about Christians and Christianity. A few Friday’s ago on June 13, 2008, the Telegraph, England’s pre-eminent newspaper featured an article purporting that as people’s intelligence increased, faith in God decreased.
The article itself is brief and seems to be meant to elicit a response. It was submitted online and one is encouraged to comment. Indeed, where the article lacks substance, the comments were varied and numerous. Some were insightful; others spewed the obligatory commenting on the commentary of others and their supposed lack of intelligence- oft expressed as one’s opinion being vacuous. I usually try to refrain from reading the drivel contained in the comments because it does reflect poorly on most who comment. I might even venture to say that this was intentional on the part of the author to make his point as to the intelligence of the ‘faithful.’ I think this intention, if it was intentional, backfired in that it only seemed to reinforce the assumption that the readers were lacking in the intelligence that the author said was evident in non-believers.
Yet, I was intrigued by the comments of some and have considered answering some of them in this article. Many of them condemned the idea of faith completely while others promoted their own ‘faith’ of atheism or agnosticism as the case may be. Further, it seemed overwhelmingly apparent that the faithful were lacking in their responses to the article or to the challenges issued by the un-believers. Conversely, the A-A’s (atheists/agnostics) lacked any real alternative to faith in God or in their own position. Usually, there was only the discounting of ‘faith’ and the suggestion to concentrate on more ‘commendable’ activities without any definition of what those things might be-the implication being that if they had to be defined then one must be too unintelligent to be able to understand them anyway.
Most disturbingly, once again, the inevitable premise is rearing its head-that somehow believers are intellectually dishonest, that the smarter mankind becomes that it must follow that belief in God must fade into oblivion. Nevertheless, I will endeavor to be as intelligible and cogent as possible as I attempt to lay out the position of the believer.
You will notice that our tag line or subtitle is certainly intentional. Isaiah the prophet says in Isa. 1:18,
“Come now, and alet us reason together,”
Says the Lord,
This is God speaking to His people. He does not say, “Believe blindly for I am the Lord”, or, “you must not be hindered by facts because I said so”, or “if you can’t understand the principles of math or logic, just say you believe in Me.” He says, in effect, “Examine the evidence and then decide whether I am God. If I am, then believe and obey.”
Christianity is truly a thinking man’s religion. It is the only one that encourages one to think, to consider the evidence. And, if the evidence is true, then, if we are intellectually honest, we must change our beliefs accordingly.
I remember when I was in high school chemistry class and we had been given a chemical that, through a series of tests, was to be indentified; I think it is called qualitative analysis. We were to add various reagents and observe and draw conclusions depending on the reactions, that is, we were to exercise our abilities in reason and logic. If by adding this substance, it turned cloudy, then it had this ion, if it turned yellow, then it had this ion; if there was no reaction, then it did have this ion, etc. At the conclusion of the tests, we were to have only one possible answer; there could not be two answers. Well, this day, I had messed up on one step. At the time I did not know it. So, when I drew my conclusion, I had based it on bad evidence and I was wrong. When I proudly turned in my test to the teacher and she pronounced I was wrong in my conclusion, I was devastated. I remember shamefully taking my class notebook and throwing it to the floor in disgust. I still could not believe that I had made an error. It was not possible. So, I did it over in my mind step by step. I then found when I had made the error. When I realized that I had goofed, I had to admit my mistake-very difficult and humbling. I apologized to my teacher and chided myself for being so careless. I thought I had arrived at the correct answer, but I had made the mistake; I had thought that my teacher was being dishonest with me or that she had not known what chemical she had given me to test. I did not consider that it was me that had made the mistake.
But, more importantly, in science, we are taught to make good observations. We are told not to accept anything blindly. In chemistry class, we were not told to test the sample and ignore the results. Further, we were not told that because we were students and learning and thus not quite intelligent enough to understand-to simply believe that it was what the teacher said. We were not told that if we could not perform the tests that someone else would do it for us and tell us what we had. We were told to test it and consider the results and draw a conclusion, to use our faculties of reason and logic.
…to be continued
a Is 41:1, 21; 43:26; Mic 6:2
[1]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Is 1:18). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
Read More
