Thursday, September 08, 2005
Journal Number Two
After the briefly studying four different historic approaches to the search for truth, I realize that the closest approach to mine is that of the Pythagoreans. The primary reason for this common ground is that God, “mysticism,” and science are so tightly intertwined as I will explain below. The reasoning behind my rejection of the other three approaches are as follows. Plato’s view is false because truth is revealed in nature. If the entire world is shadows and there is no reality to be seen, what hope does humanity have? Especially since the “enlightened one,” such as Plato, was false in his knowledge. It is true that this world consists of shadows, but there is hints of truths in these shadows otherwise all is meaningless. Aristotle’s view is incomplete because if God is the perfect being, He must know everything since ignorance is weakness and imperfection. Since He is the only all-knowing being, only He could have created us. Thus Plato and Aristotle are false.
Modern science, unfortunately, takes the approach of the Ionians. Most scientists today as so infatuated with the natural and with what a man can see. The problem in this approach is that while he can see that the sun is bright, he cannot prove that he is even seeing the sun! We cannot prove nature as true because we cannot prove that our five senses are telling the truth. Incidentally, this natural mistrust of the senses leads someone to Plato’s allegory of the cave in which all humanity sees is shadows of unreality. The truth is something greater, something supernatural, must explain the improvable such as the origin of species; not faulty theories without proof. This is the role of God in scientific theories. Since nature points to a Supernatural Being as the Creator, God is more involved in scientific theories than any man has been, is, and ever will be. He is the Author of scientific theories; we only discover them and read the beautiful words in His ultimate “treatises” such as balance in the universe via gravity, light, or atomic reactions. Thus the Ionian, and current, approach is faulty as God is the very cause for all science.
Modern science, unfortunately, takes the approach of the Ionians. Most scientists today as so infatuated with the natural and with what a man can see. The problem in this approach is that while he can see that the sun is bright, he cannot prove that he is even seeing the sun! We cannot prove nature as true because we cannot prove that our five senses are telling the truth. Incidentally, this natural mistrust of the senses leads someone to Plato’s allegory of the cave in which all humanity sees is shadows of unreality. The truth is something greater, something supernatural, must explain the improvable such as the origin of species; not faulty theories without proof. This is the role of God in scientific theories. Since nature points to a Supernatural Being as the Creator, God is more involved in scientific theories than any man has been, is, and ever will be. He is the Author of scientific theories; we only discover them and read the beautiful words in His ultimate “treatises” such as balance in the universe via gravity, light, or atomic reactions. Thus the Ionian, and current, approach is faulty as God is the very cause for all science.
Comments:
<< Home
I think my essay was unclear in terms of the five senses. The point I was trying to make concerning them is that we cannot prove them. For example, the image of your dorm room, the feel of the keyboard, and the noise of the door slamming are all taken on faith to exist because you cannot prove your senses without utilizing them to prove them, which is not proving them at all.
Having said that, I will try to answer Yankee's probably hypothetical questions.
"Why would an omnipotent God create a universe based on principles that are now understood by most 17 year olds?"
Before I try to answer this question, I must say that it is erroneous. "Most 17 year olds" have never heard of the three laws of motion. Maybe we need to remember that America is not the whole world. But Yankee does have a point that the principles of the universe can be understood by a 17 year old. So far at Wake Forest, many of my professors have told their classes that "Simplicity is best in writing." This transcends from writing into all realms of life. Was it not Thoreau who said "Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity!" And does not this simplicity of the universe hint that God is Love, and He wants to have a relationship with His creation. He is analogous to a good professor that explains the material so that his students can understand, and then invites them over for dinner. A relatively simple universe does contradict the notion of a Deistic God who tries to impress the crap out of his creation by making things much too complex to understand; He is not the power-tripping professor, no.
"Why would God create a universe that has an unchanging set of rules?"
This question is also erroneous since God can change His rules if He so desires (down with Aristotle! :) ). Miracles, both in the Bible and outside of it, have happened that defy the "simple principles of the universe that most seventeen year olds understand."
Yet it is true that the rules stay mainly constant. Why wouldn't God create a universe based on absolute rules? After all, He is absolutely God and He never changes. What better rules to make than those that do not change? A foolish god might make changing scientific rules to amend mistakes in the "first draft" i.e. creating an idea of gravity after people started falling off the earth. And again, the fact that God wants a relationship with His people also ties in here. He doesn't want to always keep us guessing; us always being stupid while He’s always being smart.
"Why would God allow us to intrude on His domain by understanding these principles?"
Again, the relationship issue applies here. God wants us to be His children! Fathers share their "domain" with their children.
Science has provided theories for its positions, based upon numbers, observations, experiments and predictable outcomes. What has God given us of his existence and purpose?
Can it not be seen that "numbers, observations, experiments and predictable outcomes" are all based on the five senses; the same five senses that are taken on faith. Science is not a separate entity with a personality. It is only a part of the big picture. Why accept this part on faith (through the senses) but not the Creator of the big picture? Why not place faith in God? The God who gave Moses the numbers of a perfectly measured Ark. The God who gives you and me the observation of beauty in nature and people. The God that lets us experiment with promiscuous sex, excessive alcohol, pride, jealously and etc and then allows us to see the painful outcomes. The God that wishes we would use the collected data of the above mentioned “experiments” to predict the outcomes of further "experiments" and to not do them!
"By your own logic of our deceitful senses, then there can be no person who has ever seen, felt, touched, or otherwise engaged with God, since that notion is based upon our flawed senses."
I was not trying to say that our senses are faulty. Instead, they are accepted by pure (subconscious) faith. And since we place faith in the senses and science, I ask why is it so inconceivable to use a mustard seed of faith in God as well?
It appears, from Yankee’s questions, that he misunderstands God. Like I said before, He is not a big old professor up in a throne in heaven trying to stay as far away from us as possible, trying to make Himself look the best and us the worst. He loves us.
Is God still so misunderstood?
Then again, as Emerson said "To be great is to be misunderstood" and perhaps this is the fate of God until the second coming, eh?
(I apologize for the length of this comment).
Post a Comment
Having said that, I will try to answer Yankee's probably hypothetical questions.
"Why would an omnipotent God create a universe based on principles that are now understood by most 17 year olds?"
Before I try to answer this question, I must say that it is erroneous. "Most 17 year olds" have never heard of the three laws of motion. Maybe we need to remember that America is not the whole world. But Yankee does have a point that the principles of the universe can be understood by a 17 year old. So far at Wake Forest, many of my professors have told their classes that "Simplicity is best in writing." This transcends from writing into all realms of life. Was it not Thoreau who said "Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity!" And does not this simplicity of the universe hint that God is Love, and He wants to have a relationship with His creation. He is analogous to a good professor that explains the material so that his students can understand, and then invites them over for dinner. A relatively simple universe does contradict the notion of a Deistic God who tries to impress the crap out of his creation by making things much too complex to understand; He is not the power-tripping professor, no.
"Why would God create a universe that has an unchanging set of rules?"
This question is also erroneous since God can change His rules if He so desires (down with Aristotle! :) ). Miracles, both in the Bible and outside of it, have happened that defy the "simple principles of the universe that most seventeen year olds understand."
Yet it is true that the rules stay mainly constant. Why wouldn't God create a universe based on absolute rules? After all, He is absolutely God and He never changes. What better rules to make than those that do not change? A foolish god might make changing scientific rules to amend mistakes in the "first draft" i.e. creating an idea of gravity after people started falling off the earth. And again, the fact that God wants a relationship with His people also ties in here. He doesn't want to always keep us guessing; us always being stupid while He’s always being smart.
"Why would God allow us to intrude on His domain by understanding these principles?"
Again, the relationship issue applies here. God wants us to be His children! Fathers share their "domain" with their children.
Science has provided theories for its positions, based upon numbers, observations, experiments and predictable outcomes. What has God given us of his existence and purpose?
Can it not be seen that "numbers, observations, experiments and predictable outcomes" are all based on the five senses; the same five senses that are taken on faith. Science is not a separate entity with a personality. It is only a part of the big picture. Why accept this part on faith (through the senses) but not the Creator of the big picture? Why not place faith in God? The God who gave Moses the numbers of a perfectly measured Ark. The God who gives you and me the observation of beauty in nature and people. The God that lets us experiment with promiscuous sex, excessive alcohol, pride, jealously and etc and then allows us to see the painful outcomes. The God that wishes we would use the collected data of the above mentioned “experiments” to predict the outcomes of further "experiments" and to not do them!
"By your own logic of our deceitful senses, then there can be no person who has ever seen, felt, touched, or otherwise engaged with God, since that notion is based upon our flawed senses."
I was not trying to say that our senses are faulty. Instead, they are accepted by pure (subconscious) faith. And since we place faith in the senses and science, I ask why is it so inconceivable to use a mustard seed of faith in God as well?
It appears, from Yankee’s questions, that he misunderstands God. Like I said before, He is not a big old professor up in a throne in heaven trying to stay as far away from us as possible, trying to make Himself look the best and us the worst. He loves us.
Is God still so misunderstood?
Then again, as Emerson said "To be great is to be misunderstood" and perhaps this is the fate of God until the second coming, eh?
(I apologize for the length of this comment).
<< Home
