Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 02.14.2009 /
This post is a response from Chris C to Science does a better job.
The statement in the previous topic ‘Science does a better job’ begs the question: at what? Well, obviously, at understanding the way the world works. This shouldn’t be surprising for God gave us the skills to do this and told to get on with it (Genesis 1: 26-28). That’s why He didn’t bother to put any of this understanding into scripture. Yes, sure people have tried to use the Bible to understand the way creation works, as they have done with many things. But, as that was not the Bible’s function, it’s hardly surprising that they have come up with poor answers. People have always understood that the Bible doesn’t deal with applied science (engineering principles, agricultural techniques etc) except where these have had significance in drawing closer to God (which is the whole purpose of scripture). So I’ve never understood why they should assume that the Bible was going to answer pure scientific questions, when clearly we can manage these ourselves.
Where science doesn’t do a good job is deciding how its discoveries should be used (nuclear and chemical weapons, pollution, distribution of wealth generated by application of science etc etc). Should we reject scientific endeavour, as some post-moderns wish, because of this: no of course not. Science doesn’t have the tools to answer moral and ethical issues or questions directed at our purpose and destiny, so we should not expect it to do so. Yet some challenge Christianity’s value partially on the basis that it doesn’t address questions of a scientific nature and refuses to be probed by the scientific method. In my opinion, several recent discussions on this board have shown this is a smoke screen. But dangerously, it obscures one of the most important things that Christianity is meant to do: teach us how to live rightly and give us the power to do so.
The Judeo-Christian tradition is, in fact good at answering the moral and ethical dilemmas raised by man’s scientific discoveries. Its teaching on humility, neighbour loving, stewarding of creation, the fruits of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control [Galatians 5:22-26]), are the answers we need. And importantly, as that passage in Galatians makes clear, it claims to provide the power of God in our lives to help us achieve these things.
Both science and Christianity speak fundamental truths into this world and we should direct our energies to seeing and using their individual strengths and understanding and applying them better, rather than trying to play one off against the other.
Comment by: Jason
1Me neither but it is an unfortunate truism that many people do. Protestant Fundamentalism is about accepting the bible as literally true. That means that the world is 6,000 to 10,000 years old, that evolution is false as we were created whole as human beings, that a Flood occurred that formed well known geological features, etc. As long as people hold to beliefs that are opposed by good, well researched, tested evidence then their beliefs are false. I can’t sugar coat that fact even though I want to, these beliefs are simply wrong.
Science is a tool to discover truths about the universe. There are soft sciences (sociology and psychology for a start) that reveal truths about society and behaviour. They don’t tell us what to do with this knowledge but they do provide us with information about what is effective. I’m a little confused about the idea of purpose and destiny though. As far as I know science has never tried to explore these things. You do assume that there is a purpose or destiny to human life. I’m not so sure.
Is that really what Christianity is meant to do? I know several people who would disagree and claim that the religion is only supposed to bring us closer to God. Living in this world is a secondary concern for them except in how it connects them to God. I would say that you have taken the teachings of Christ in the bible and transposed them over your life and the lives of others as valuable source of direction. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with taking Christianity and using it to live a better life but I dispute that this was the intention.
Christianity is certainly one way of answering moral questions. As a subset of philosophy an absolute answer certainly has a place. This does not make it the only answer though. Many other religions also provide answers to moral questions and, of course, there are answers to be found entirely outside of religion.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
2Jason wrote:
Do you dispute that based on Jesus’ words?
It seems to me that he talked a lot about how people are to live in this life. He said that the two greatest commandments are love God and love your neighbor (and, he said, they’re alike).
Love your neighbor is all about how people live this life.
Comment by: Jason
3I’m basing it on conversations I’ve had that centre around Mark 16:16 and Galatians 2:16 that indicate that it is by faith alone that people have salvation and not by doing good deeds. While I don’t agree with this personally it is certainly a valid interpretation that plants doubts about the intent of those teachings. On the subject of love God and love your neighbour I think it is telling that love God is first in these two “equal” commandments. If a Christian had to choose between them which would be first?
I really wish that there wasn’t this doubt and that people could use the bible to live a better life. I’m sure I don’t need to point out the terrible things that have happened when people put the next life before this one.
Comment by: Chris C
4I’m with most of what you say Jason. Just three qualifications.
I don’t actually mind Christians believing in a ‘young earth, 6 day creation’ or in ‘intelligent design’: after all, the Bible doesn’t say how God did it. It’s when they waste time trying to say that science supports their views. Or, worse, that the Bible insists they’re right and that you can’t be a Christian unless you take Genesis 1-2 literally, which of course they don’t: no one believes snakes eat dust. Even the writers would have known that they were writing nonsense if they’d meant it to be taken chronologically: they’ve got three evenings and mornings before the lights that govern day and night were created, and plants before the sun. Neolithic farmers knew that plants needed the sun. Anyone can see it’s elevated or high prose with its primary meaning beyond timing and sequence.
I’m not a great believer in the findings of the soft sciences: they’re, well, too soft. Sorry if any readers are professionals in these areas.
Without God there can be no moral absolutes. At best it’s what collectively, in each age and culture, society wishes, at worst it’s determined by the rich and the powerful. All the major religions have a similar moral code in their holy books.
I did say loving your neighbour as yourself (living rightly) was one of the most important things’ that Christians are meant to do. The others are loving God, coming close to Him, and taking Jesus’ message out.
Comment by: Jason
5I completely agree except I don’t have a problem with moral relativism at least in a weak sense. Strong relativism quite quickly ties itself up in knots of allowing anything and denying nothing. As for religions having similar moral codes I would say that a soft science like anthropology would point to a common social homogeny among the disparate religions perhaps as a result of a shared biology and evolved social structure.
It doesn’t take a genius (or a god) to point out that killing one another, stealing, cheating or cheating on isn’t too good for the group. Defining these traits as negative and ascribing them to a moral absolute serves the common good whether the moral absolute is true or not. Similarly defining positive traits like loyalty, love, sacrifice and honesty as being admired by the gods or God serves the interests of the group and is likely to gain support from all quarters.
Indeed you did but then it becomes a question of setting priorities. Would you say that a Fundamentalist’s priorities were skewed? Would you accept that they may say the same about your more liberal Christian priorities?
Comment by: Chris C
6Jason said
As they also do when people focus on this life. The real problem in both cases is a self focus rather than a Jesus focus. Anyway, the Christian message has a major focus on this life rather than the next.
For a group this is just extended kin altruism. The moral codes of the main faiths go much further than this, as we discussed before with regard to enemy loving and sacrificial care in Christianity.
Not sure what you mean here. My beliefs are orthodox. Fundamentalists (the modern sense of the word) and I would both agree on the central beliefs of the Christian faith that I’ve outlined elsewhere. All the Christian denominations have these within the essentials of their faith (this includes loving God, serving our neighbour and taking the Gospel out).
Comment by: Jason
7I’m not sure I follow. Are you talking about a focus that is exclusively self centred or one that is focused on earthly existence without regard to any other? Certainly self centred actions can be harmful to society but I fail to see how dismissing an afterlife can damage society. Could you elaborate?
Obviously Fundamentalism has changed since its inception and I’m not very familiar with the modern sense of the word. Fundamentalism expands on the bible teachings to live according to biblical rules. These rules though are to focus the believer on living in a way that brings her closer to God. The priorities are godly rather than worldly. Perhaps I’m over simplifying but I get the impression that if a Fundamentalist were to prioritise the foci of their faith (loving your neighbour as yourself, loving God and taking Jesus’ message out) then living rightly would be last of the three.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
8Jason wrote:
Those are only two verses - my comment was based on everything Jesus said (according to the Bible). If you look at everything he said do you get the impression he wasn’t at all focused on this life? Or do you think he was?
Jesus said the two commandments were ‘alike’ - in view of that I don’t think it’s significant that love God is first. Nor do I think there’s a choice to be made, since they are ‘alike’.
I wish they could too. Some do, I think.
Comment by: Jason
9Helen wrote
No I don’t but the question for me isn’t that important because I don’t view Jesus as divine. For those who I have enjoyed conversations with and who focus of being saved through grace rather than works it is a very important distinction.
Again for some there is a choice to be made and the order of things is very important. Some people might even feel that they have somehow failed if they do not put God first.
Considering how successful the religion has been I’d be very surprised if only a few lives were improved through faith. Certainly many people have talked about the transformative effects of their belief. There is also the positive influence that comes through charity. Christians like charity more than any other religion. On balance though is religion a greater force for good or not? It is very hard to test.
Comment by: Chris C
10Jason said
I’m sure all practising Christians would put ‘loving God/knowing Him/drawing close first. It makes us more effective in doing the other two. Some would say that they couldn’t do the others without God in their lives to help them.
Clarifying my point about a focus on this life. I was thinking about the mayhem caused by regimes, of both the right and left, in the 20th cent. that had a non-theistic or atheistic focus.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
11“Begging the question” has developed this newer usage “Impels us to ask the question:” after which follows the statement of the question that we feel impelled to ask. Originally this phrase was a debating term, where “the question” was the assertion questioned in the debate. “Begging the question” meant arguing “You know in your heart of hearts I am right”, derisively characterized as “begging”, rather than pointing to any thread of logic that might help the hearer navigate to this alleged place in his understanding.
And further “Well, obviously, at understanding the way the world works”. Are we taking the position that man is (certainly!) not a part of this world, or that the mind of man (certainly!!) isn’t?
Comment by: Martin Gugino
12These are two different ideas: how you are saved, and how you are to live.