Love God with your Mind!

"Sadly, perhaps no group is more gullible to these sorts of claims than evangelical Christians." ~Todd Bolen

The unfortunate thing is he could be talking about a wide variety of claims. In this specific case he is talking about the claim a new movie makes that Noah's Ark has been found on a mountain in Iran, but the fact is that Christians are often far too willing to welcome any harebrained idea with open arms, so long as it appears to be at least mildly on "their side." Poor scholarship and a lack of discernment are rampant in the church today, and at times that seems especially true in the more conservative circles. Perhaps it is because there are so few truly conservative scholars doing work today that anything published that seems to support of conservative view is hailed as "proof that the Bible is true!", before the truth of its claims are fairly evaluated. I am, perhaps, being excessively harsh. I will not deny that there are some good, Christian scholars at work and it is possible that even some of the unscholarly "proofs" have some value in them. Nevertheless, we should be able to do better. Christians should be on the leading edge of scholarship in every field, instead of lagging behind, piggy-backing on the shoulders of people who have a different set of foundational beliefs.

This, roughly, is the topic of conversation that came up the other day as my family was talking. We came up with 3 specific areas of study where not only do we rather disagree with the general direction that "secular" scholars are taking the field, but where there is a lack of good, Bible-based scholars.

1. The study of origins (Creation vs. Evolution). This is my dad's passion, and I admit, I take more than a passing interest in it. The thing is, my dad really believes that the Bible contains the answers to the debate and that in ignoring that, both secular and (often) Christian scientists have taken a wrong turn. Unfortunately, Christian scholars often also have really bad science, making them unacceptable to both sides. With "better" (though really also far from perfect) science on the side of the evolutionists, many Christians have been enticed away from faith in the Bible and even faith in God. If only we had a few good scientists who also had good theology! (Some good rhetoric and logic skills wouldn't hurt either. I've seen too many decent scientists/theologians who lose on their presentations.)

2. Counseling and the interaction between soul, brain, and body. (Psychology and Psychiatry vs. Biblical or Nouthetic Counseling) This was brought up by my brother, but is also an area in which I am interested. The problem is that, in general, Psychology and Biblical Counseling are diametrically opposed. Secular Psychology assumes that people are basically good and the Bible says that people are basically sinful. With this very basic difference in understanding of the root of people's problems, obviously the proffered solutions will differ greatly. Psychology, as I understand it, claims to deal more with the immaterial part of a person (mind, soul, emotions, etc.) The Bible was written by the One who created the immaterial part of a person, so it seems likely that, when applied properly, it would have better answers than those made up by other fallible humans. Therefore, I think Biblical Counseling has an edge over modern Psychology. However, we are not merely immaterial beings - we have a physical part, and the two interact and are inseparable. There are times when something going on in the physical body affects the "psyche" or soul. Unfortunately, there are relatively few Biblical counselors (or even Psychologists) who know much of anything about medicine or the brain. Psychiatrists try to fill this need, but there are very few Psychiatrists with a high view of scripture. I dare say there may be some, but I've never heard of any. Think of the connections that could be made and problems that could be solved by a Biblical Counselor who also happened to be a Neuropsychiatrist. Perhaps instead of recklessly trusting drugs that we don't understand to change behavior they could actually get to the root of any physical causes while still counseling godliness for any spiritual causes.

3. Archaeology (especially as it relates to the Bible). This has been my area of consideration for the past semester, and I have probably already written about it. Oh well, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll talk about it anyway. I admit it. I've been brought up to believe the Bible. So imagine my surprise when I realized that almost no one at my school (teacher-wise, at least) believed anything in the Bible. Ok, actually, I wasn't that surprised, and it wasn't quite that bad. Many of the teachers believe parts. What did surprise me, though, was the fact that some of the harshest critics of the historicity of the Bible are theologians. I was also surprised to find that the most conservative scholars in the field didn't even take the Bible seriously. Some of the conclusions they draw, while seeming to support the Bible, in my view actually rather undermine it. Let me try to give an example to explain. The Bible says that Abraham left Haran and went into Canaan (see Genesis 12). Scholars, perhaps because they don't believe the Bible to be anything more than a rough historical remembrance of events long ago, say, "Hmm...let's look for a time when people were migrating from Mesopotamia to Canaan to try to fix the time of the Patriarchs." And if they find such a time, they say, "See, the Bible is true, in that it faithfully preserved a memory of the past. Abraham himself probably didn't exist, but people like him did!" On the other hand, I, believing Abraham to be a real person, would say, "Wouldn't Abraham's migration be rather unique at the time he left? Otherwise, why would God have to give him special instructions? And if He did, why would it take any special faith on Abraham's part to follow them? If everyone else was doing it, what was the big deal? Wouldn't it seem more likely that this movement of Abraham was very unusual at this time?" I could be wrong, but looking at the Bible, I often find that I would make fundamentally different assumptions than those that most scholars make.) At any rate, the more I learn about archaeology, the more questions I have. What is presented in class really doesn't fit with what the Bible says, which brings many questions to my mind. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many people in the field asking those same questions. There is such a need for conservative Christians in archaeology!

I'll add a couple disclaimers here. :)
1. I by no means want to set up scientific knowledge as a sort of "savior." I do think, though, that as Christians we should pursue knowledge, both scientific and other, to the glory of God, for the furtherance of the kingdom, and to help us better understand Him. As Christians who know and worship the God of truth, I also think we are best equipped to find more truth, if we apply ourselves rightly.

2. Obviously, I believe the Bible is true, and I take a fairly literal, conservative interpretation of it. This point of view is generally scorned by researchers and scientists in the above fields. Leaving aside the question of whether or not this is the correct view of scripture, I think that science is done a great diservice by people automatically rejecting anything from this view point. If nothing else, it offers a different set of base assumptions and therefore asks different questions than pretty much everyone else in the field. I would contend that if science is to progress and stay healthy, it needs to be able to answer these questions too.

And the conclusion? I still have more questions than answers, and still have only one lifetime to try to figure things out. So, if anyone reading this has interests in any of these areas (or other areas - we need Christians everywhere!) maybe let this challenge you to pursue excellence in your field, to be uniquely Biblical in your viewpoint, and to share your findings with the world.

Newton quotes

I've been reading the book Mathematics: Is God Silent by James Nickel lately, and he had a couple great quotes from Newton, so I thought I'd share those.

" The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God... And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be doe.... We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature.... And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy."

"...The main busisness of natural Philosophy is to argue from phaenomena without feigning Hypotheses, and to deduce Causes from Effects, till we come to the very first Cause, which certainly is not mechanical.... What is there in places almost empty of Matter, and whence is it that the Sun and Planets gravitate towards one another, without dense Matter between them? Whence is it that Nature doth nothing in vain; and whence arises all that Order and Beauty which we see in the World? To what end are the Comets, and whence is it that Planets move all one and the same way in Orbs concentrick, while Commets move all manner of ways in Orbs very excentrick; and what hinders the fix'd Stars from falling upon one another? How came the Bodies of Animals to be contrived with so much Art, and for what ends were their several Parts? Was the Eye contrived without Skill in Opticks, and the Ear without Knowledge of Sounds?.... And these things being rightly dispatch'd, does it not appear from Phaenomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent, who in infinite Space, as it were in his Sensory, sees the things themselves intimately, and thoroughly perceives them, and comprehends them wholly by their immediate presence to himself... And though every true Step made in this Philosophy brings us not immediately to the Knowledge of the first Cause, yet it brings us nearer to it, and on that account is to be highly valued."


...and that's why we study science.