One of the aims of our conversation on this blog is to grapple with the issues of reasonable faith. As a professor and a scientist, I (RJS) find this a crucial and unavoidable discussion. It is a fact of our modern (or postmodern) church that we must develop a way to think about our faith that engages heart, mind, soul, and strength.
In the current conflict between science and faith the discussion often boils down to knowing; how do we "know" and understand? How do we learn? We have amassed an enormous body of knowledge in science and history, sociology, psychology, and linguistics. None of us can know everything in every subject. How many of us really understand particle physics, quantum mechanics, genetics, geophysics, or ANE culture and language? For that matter, how many of us read Greek and have real expertise in 1st century Roman and Jewish culture? We all trust intuition, common sense, and authorities. In this post and in a follow-up post I want to consider two aspects of knowing in relation to science and faith. Today - intuition, and in the next post authority.
Here is the key question for us today - How do we know that our Christian faith is true - founded in reality? Is this knowledge based on intuition or authority or both?
Tim Keller in his book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
claims that we all know that God exists. He concludes CH. 8 The Clues of God and sets up CH 9 The Knowledge of God saying:
claims that we all know that God exists. He concludes CH. 8 The Clues of God and sets up CH 9 The Knowledge of God saying:In the next chapter I want to do something very personal. I don't want to argue why God may exist. I want to demonstrate that you already know that God does exist. I'd like to convince the reader that, whatever you may profess intellectually, belief in God is an unavoidable, "basic" belief that we cannot prove but can't not know. We know God is there. That is why even when we believe with all our minds that life is meaningless, we simplty can't live that way. We know better. (p. 142)
This intuitive belief in God is widely recognized and acknowledged, even among secular scholars. But is this intuition reliable?
An interesting essay was published awhile ago in Science Magazine [Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science, P. Bloom and D. S. Weisberg, Science 312, 9960-997 (2007)]. This short essay discusses resistance to ideas that conflict with common sense and intuition and are reinforced by trusted authorities. An important point is that intuition and common sense are not always right as intuition is based on limited experience. For example consider a ball exiting a curved tube. Which picture best illustrates the motion of the ball?
Many college students will select A - based on an intuition that motion should continue as before. The correct answer, of course, is B - the ball will continue straight. Our intuition recognizes this as obvious if we simply change the illustration from a ball to water:
The point of this illustration is simply that intuition is not always right and must be questioned - something every teacher, every professor, especially every science professor, knows very well. Quantum theory for example is not exactly intuitive or obvious. Evolutionary biology is, perhaps, more intuitive - but still conflicts with "normal" expectation.
Bloom and Weisberg, the authors of this Science article, as well as Richard Dawkins and others, are defending the position that "scientific" naturalistic thinking is counter intuitive but correct, while religious thinking is intuitive and wrong. Our innate belief that the universe has purpose, meaning, or plan is "unscientific" and in error. Likewise, a belief that we are more than a fortuitous agglomeration of electrons, protons, and neutrons is a fairy tale.
While Dawkins and others would like us to believe that all intelligent, reasonable people will see things their way - this is hardly a universally accepted position.
Many scientists at all levels disagree with the pure naturalist view. Francis Collins (The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief) accepts the observations of science (age of the universe, evolution as mechanism of God's creation) but denies the assertion that our sense of right, wrong, meaning and purpose is an evolutionary accident. We have considered Collins's book at length on this blog. So here I would like to look at another book.
) accepts the observations of science (age of the universe, evolution as mechanism of God's creation) but denies the assertion that our sense of right, wrong, meaning and purpose is an evolutionary accident. We have considered Collins's book at length on this blog. So here I would like to look at another book. Owen Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy and of the History of Science Emeritus at Harvard University has written an excellent small book, God's Universe, in which he contests the idea that science and our understanding of the Universe eliminates purpose or design. There is no "center" of the universe - but this does not mean no purpose and no plan. Our understanding of astrophysics and astronomy does not lead inevitably to the view that the earth is insignificant and unexceptional. It is reasonable to consider the possibility or probability that God planned the emergence of intelligent creatures "in his image" and that this was programmed into the universe.
, in which he contests the idea that science and our understanding of the Universe eliminates purpose or design. There is no "center" of the universe - but this does not mean no purpose and no plan. Our understanding of astrophysics and astronomy does not lead inevitably to the view that the earth is insignificant and unexceptional. It is reasonable to consider the possibility or probability that God planned the emergence of intelligent creatures "in his image" and that this was programmed into the universe. It was Galileo who wrote that the reality of the world was dually expressed in the Book of Scripture and in Nature, and these two great books could not contradict each other, because God was the author of both. So just as I believe that the Book of Scripture illumines the pathway to God, I also believe that the Book of Nature, in all its astonishing detail - the blade of grass, the missing mass five, or the incredible intricacy of DNA - suggests a God of purpose and a God of Design. And I think my belief makes me no less a scientist. (p. 79)
Accepting our intuition as correct, that there is a meaning and purpose in the world makes our Christian faith both reasonable and plausible. Gingerich reflects on this in the epilogue of his book.
If we regard God's world as a site of purpose and intention and accept that we, as contemplative surveyors of the universe, are included in that intention, then the vision is incomplete without a role for divine communication, a place for God both as Creator-Sustainer and as Redeemer, a powerful transcendence that not only can be a something but can take on the mask of a someone; a which that can connect with us as a who, in a profound I-Thou relation. Such communication will be best expressed through personal relationships, through wise voices and prophets in many times and places. (p. 120)
and
Within the framework of Christianity, Jesus is the supreme example of personal communication from God. When the apostle Philip requested "Show us the Father," Jesus responded, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the father." When Jesus, hanging on the cross and slowly suffocating, cried out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" the nature of God's self-limited, dappled world became excruciatingly clear. God acts within the world, but not always in the ways most obvious to our blinkered vision (p. 121)
So, back to Keller and our intuitive knowledge of God. I think that the most important point of conflict in the science/faith debate is located right here. Collins, Gingerich, and I think that our intuition is reliable on this issue (and I could add many more names of scientists to this list). Dawkins, Bloom, Weisberg, and many others believe that our intuition misleads us.
What do you think?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Kyle,
I have found the posts and comments here to be a great help. People are very polite and knowledgeable, and some have even walked through deep doubt before. This site is definitely in my top 3. Thanks Kyle for your very insightful words. You have given me much to ponder today. Thanks.
Jason, I have recently gone through the same waters you're treading now. People have thrown a bunch of books on the pile for you, but can I recommend one more: Donald Bloesch's "Essentials of Evangelical Theology," and particularly chapter XI, "Towards a Recovery of Biblical Faith," in which Bloesch provides a very nuanced position on inerrancy.
I think something like Bloesch's view allows us to affirm what "inerrancy" really out to mean: that "[w]hat is infallible and inerrant is the Word within the words, the divine meaning given in and through the human testimony." (p. 273) Bloesch continues: "Our ultimate norm is not simply what the human author intends but what God intends through the witness of the author, though there always is a certain congruity between the latter and the former."
You might also appreciate Fuller Seminary's Statement of Faith and in particular its statment concerning scripture (Here and . Many of Fuller's faculty (someone mentioned John Goldingay, who teaches at Fuller) are exemplary in trying to deal with historical and text-critical questions in an evangelical framework.
If you're comfortable with approaches like Bloesch and Fuller Seminary's, that might be a point of contact for you with your local church and family context. Hopefully they can then see that you're wrestling to understand what we mean by terms such as "inspiration" and "inerrancy" in a way that is faithful to the evangelical tradition, and hopefully they will accept whatever extent to which your position is nuanced away from theirs. If not, perhaps that's a clearer sign that a different local church context would be more healthy. Of course, you can't change your family, but even there, you can, without getting into fights, point to some real substantive stuff that demonstrates your fidelity and sincerity.
Thank you all for responding. There is a lot to address here and I apologize in advance if I miscredit a quote from one author to another. I will adress Kyle first.
I will use this quote as a place marker for your central theme that my doubts are emotional and not intellectual. I have to disagree with you on this, my doubts surely began as intellectual, indeed they began when I resolved to fully explore evolution with as little preconceived bias as I could (impossible in practice) but lo and behold I was firmly convinced of the historical reality of common descent. From those early beginnings I have read quite a bit of literature on evolutionary biology and am now quite familiar with it, indeed it replaced physics as my favorite science subject and since science is my top hobby that pretty much insures that for the time being it gets the most attention of any of my intellectual pursuits. Regardless of where I land on trust in Jesus, Biblical history, or innerrancy, I'm not going to revise this position unless I was strongly convinced otherwise by empirical data which at this point would mean there would have had to be the largest, most advanced, most perfectly orchestrated conspiracy the world has ever seen. But as I said before, accepting our historical origins was not a huge detraction from my faith, many believers had done it before me (hey, if it is good enough for CS Lewis), obviously RJS is on board and if I remember correctly Scott McKnight himself has recently made positive affirmations on the subject (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). At first I kept to a literal Adam and Eve but that soon became untenable as did Noah or any idea that modern animals were reduced to a single pair a mere 4k years ago at a central location on earth (or any of the other 1E48 different reasons that entire story is obviously not historical) and since the tower of Babel story came next I just through it in as well, I mean come on, that always sounded like a fable to me to explain language diversification (which of course happens quite naturally). And yet, none of this itself would imply the Bible wasn't innerrant or God's word. I tentatively logged it as metaphorical or allegorical and yet the common YEC party line of “well then how do you know what IS historical” is a valid question and when I went out to figure out exactly when the line of history began in the Bible, well that is when things started turning south. Source criticism, archeology, true internal inconsistencies, relationships to other ANE texts, laws, and world views; all the things quickly became to much to hold to my definition of innerrancy I held in my youth.At this point I need to pause to clarify that two things are at stake. On the one hand, it is my view of Biblical innerrancy, which at some point in time will have to be resolved regarding my relationship with my church. The second is my faith in Jesus to forgive me of my sins via his substitutionary atonement via his death on the cross and ressurection. . . . otherwise known as my faith in general. These aren't of course, entirely separate, but it is possible I will come out of this with more confidence in and dependence in the Risen Son of God and yet not return to my earlier conclusions regarding the OT. Indeed, many many Chrisstians have down this before, for several hundred years, it is just that I was a fundamentalist so I never included them as “real” Christians:)
Now did I get emotional about this? You better believe it! Even before I began doubting my actual faith, just dealing with evolution and then biblical history was often emotional because of the community I run in. It's just not acceptable to come out and say these things. You emphaze my family though that is not a big concern, I probably over emphasized it in my original post. Both sides of my family live very far away, and little if anything would change (or indeed, has changed since it has been several years now) regarding evolution or even Biblical innerrancy. At this point, it is just easier to keep my mouth shut about the issue. My wife knows my views on evolution and Genesis, though I must admit I haven't been truly honest with her regarding my doubts with the rest of the OT. She is likewise having her own struggles as she studies through a lot of the OT from the usual sticking points that are frequently commented on in other threads on this blog, namely the genocide, slavery, women, etc issues. My church is another matter altogether. “Growing” in my church is at its core, and in its definition that would imply MORE assurance in the Bible as God's innerrant written perfect word. I think the leadership finds me a strange duck since I came from a position in absolute confidence in the Bible and have been moving the other direction. Still, like I said, I might with confidence affirm the foundational tenants of our faith and yet take a more liberal position on the Bible, I'm just not sure what that would imply for my continued fellowship with this church.
Ah, so many things to discuss, so many things to make clear. Before I forget, I agree that my definition of innerrancy is a recent western one, and that there might be a large umbrella to land in regarding my confidence that it is inspired by God while at the same time being written by people. But there is no point trying to determine a good definition of innerrancy, the important thing is that I know exactly what my church means and that I am honest with them, and their definition is very much the recent western church conception.
If I don't get to the point here, this thing is going to become a essay. Regarding archeology, I haven't read a great deal. I read a good amount of Finkelstein, but that didn't persuade me one way or another. It is important to me to actually understand what exactly the evidence is for such and such assertions, and Finkelstein just sums up all the results, with out defending it. This is not to his discredit mind you, that is probably impossible and outside the scope of his book, but while I remain ignorant on the actual field of archeology I won't accept Finkelstien conclusions purely on authority. What I am learning though is that modern archeology in the mainstream is in no way supporting the early Biblical narrative. They very well might be wrong, I can choose to believe that regardless of the fact that I am not qualified to decide one way or another. But as to the affirmation I heard all through out my youth, that archeology time and time again keeps confirming the Bible, at least as a majority consensus I think this is utterly false. I'm sure there are some Christian archaeologist who think they have conclusively confirmed it, I do hope their evidence and methods is better then that of creation scientists. The one area of archeology I do find troubling would be that based around the Exodus. Before we even enter that picture though, I must admit it is astounding difficult to take at face value that roughly 2 or 3 (or more) MILLION people where in that camp. How exactly you can organize that group to move at all (not to mention livestock!) in one direction boggles the mind. Add to this the specifics of EVERYONE gathering around the tent (for how many miles in each direction), and the fact that the army seems larger then all the armies of the ANE summed together (and yet Isreal was the least in Canaan and likewise feared the Egyptians). Now add to this the archeology statement I have continuously heard they they seemed to manage this feet without leaving any evidence of their forty year occupation of the desert. Add even to this that the description of these events appears to be the conglomeration of several sources that disagree on some details that would at least imply that one of those details was in error...when you sum it all up it seems the more obvious conclusion is that this event is largely fictional. Perhaps there was an exodus, perhaps it was much smaller, and perhaps the general stories regarding the kings beginning with Saul are generally correct and perhaps that even extends back in Judges, but just my conclusion that the amount of people in exodus is vastly overstated puts me outside the camp of innerrancy as is at stake here. And returning to the reason I originally posted, I wonder if any attempt to return to a view of innerrancy here would be because the evidence was indeed pointing that way or only on the basis of an axiomatic assertion that it is true regardless of what we find in the text or in the soil.
I'm not going to delve into why much of my research has strained my faith in general in this comment lest I take over the entire site with my words. Perhaps I will try to explain that (as briefly as I can:) in another comment. But I'm pretty sure my doubt is grounded firmly in my intellectual struggles, producing emotional stress, not being produced by it. I am 30 (which I guess is the time many question everything) but I don't know anyone dying of cancer or dying of anything for that matter who is close to me. Furthermore, I get what your saying about faith in Jesus versus faith in the Bible. Of course, when I was firmly confident in the bible I would have asserted my faith was solely in Jesus but obvious since the Bible is the only place we can learn the truth about him (which us non-charismatics Calvinists are usually very clear about) then they are heavily related. And for sure, I could still continue that faith in Jesus as both a historical Risen figure and as my God and Savior, even if I think Biblical authors not only wrote the about the incorrect science of their day but the incorrect history they were exposed to as well. It is not so much that the Bible might not be perfect, instead it is what I find in what it does say. For instance, are their really any meaningful prophecies in the OT? How is Isaiah NOT talking about the child born one chapter later who seems to fulfill the prophecy he just spoke of in the time of the King who the sign was supposed to be for in the first place regarding two armies who existence 500 years in the future would be a moot point. Almost all of the truly miraculous events of the OT take place in regions are highly suspect are fiction, so what supernatural things did happen in history? Etc Etc. I really need to save this for another post.
Quickly regarding the NT, thank you for the pointers. I hope your right that an honest evaluation will lead to a high likelihood of reliability. If I began to question the overall history of the gospel narratives, then I pretty much wouldn't be a Christian anyway. I must admit I have stopped trying to harmonize all the details of the synoptics, it seems okay to me to accept one of the two authors if not both don't' have the details exact, it never seems to be a huge detail either way. I guess regarding my struggles with the OT, this is a minor problem.
Sorry this was so terribly long.
Jason,
Essays for comments are okay. I'm an expert at them myself, haha. You obviously have a lot of issues that you are dealing with right now and it seems like a lot of them are church issues as well which makes it harder. Sorry for overestimating the importance of emotion in your journey, it just seemed that fear kept coming up in your previous comments.
Once again, your questions seem to be ones that I've struggled with in the past, and have heard others talk about here, at my seminary, church, etc. so know that others have gone before and there are solid answers that won't cause you to lose your faith in Christ. Keep researching and praying. Find out why your church claims to have this stance on inerrancy, and talk to the pastors and see if that's even "really" their view.
Stay passionate about seeking the truth, knowing that God desires you to be faithful to Him and doesn't want false faith. If you want to talk through the issues more in depth, we can e-mail, Skype, etc. or keep discussing in other comment threads as issues come up.
Jason,
I cannot give you any substantial, documented advise, but I do find that our experiences overlap in some crucial areas.
I too came from a background of a fundamentalist. Actually, its more complicated than that as my sect predates the fundamentalist movement by almost two centuries and we are Arminian to boot -- but I digress.
Needless to say, I can remember the mantra from my childhood "People who believe in Evolution want to be atheists and desire to live in sin."
Let me hasten to add that I do not _hate_ or feel superior in any way to the people who introduced me to Faith and Hope. I just disagree with them. God truly blessed me in these relationships.
The course of this adventure began at the age of 10 or 11. (I was taking notes on sermons at the age of 7 or 8 and became a member of the sect at the age of 8). I had the audacity at 12 to begin assembling my "case against Evolution."
This, of course, was a despairing situation for a pre-teen. By the time I was 16 I had dedicated myself to learn Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry. Actually, I was a depressed, driven 16 year old.
My youthful energy drove me into college getting degrees in Computer Science, Mathematics, and Physics. All the while still contending that --someday-- I'd have perfect answers to all my questions. I should note that my family and congregations knew my questioning habit. Fortunately, my family was supportive of me but the congregations labeled me as a "risk" and I was "monitored" in any class I attended or was allowed to teach.
This continued until graduate school at which point after a year I had what I now see as a nervous breakdown. I dropped out of school and completely abandoned my scientific perspectives and goals.
Of course, 5 years of advanced training in Physics (with 3 co-authored papers by my 3rd year) doesn't just leave your mind or the way you think.
I decided to dedicate myself to ministry and go live as a missionary in the third world.
Again, in retrospect, I see I was running from my fears. Of course, many of those fears are like yours, it was community and familial rejection.
Over the last ten years, as I found myself isolated from my faith community and building my own family, I have found myself more willing to address my questions.
Really, the ability to do this without a panic attack came from a set of epiphanies I had.
1. Never change your mind in anger.
2. Never abandon hope no matter where truth takes you.
3. Always pick the path that leads to self-sacrifice and "loving your neighbor"
4. Be grateful for the life you have been given.
5. Remember, all this will end.
I have said it before here -- I do not know what one would call me now. Perhaps I'm "liberal" or "emergent" or even "existential" or "fatalistic."
I appreciate the discussions here with the people running the blog as they are attempting to maintain an "orthodox" viewpoint. This keeps me honest in the same way that discussions with atheists / agnostics do.
I guess, despite my rambling above, I'm just trying to say "Keep your head clear" and "always believe in hope." I know that this does not handle the emotions of the other people in your life, but as somebody quoted above from Dostoevsky about faith coming from the furnace of doubt. I find this to be true.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.