Me, Torrance and Barth in a discussion with Paul

Preface:

“Paul” is a young liberal who occasionally writes in on my political site . . . and allow me to use the word “liberal.” He really does not chime in on the discussion unless and until I say something about God. The following is part of a discussion we are having, even as I write this post.

Before I continue, let me say something about “labels.” In politics, I am quite the “conservative.” I consider myself equally conservative in my theology, but most who know me, consider me to a liberal -- almost more liberal than they want to tolerate. I have been disfellowship by more fundamentalist churches than most of you have driven past. I was refused graduation at seminary because of what I believed (grace and the indwelling spirit were the cause of my demise.) So I became a carpenter. Understand that I believe that Barth is more the Fundamentalist than anyone I know. As a result, my use of labels is always an advised matter, seldom meant to be negative.

Initial post and speaking to "Paul" 

You write: “Chaos is a direct result of believing in fairy tales.” 


 I assume you mean “God” with the term “fairy tales.” Rather than argue the point, I simply ask for a substantive example of your claim. I don’t think you can come up with one.

You write: “If you need to explain faith by saying that it is beyond our comprehension then maybe faith needs a little more scrutiny.” 


 I don’t think I went down this road -- more of you putting me in one of your stereotypical boxes. But, I would argue your conclusion.

Here is what I think: faith always comes into play when something in an equation is not in evidence. Discovery science has faith that a cure for cancer “is just around the corner.” Faith, . . . . . “believing in that which is not in evidence” . . . . . . is the very thing that drives discovery science. It, faith, is the only reason you, heir Paul, make plans for tomorrow, since there is no evidence that you will live through the night. Faith is the ONLY explanation for a mathematical postulate* which means, of course, that all the conclusions of science have, as their cornerstone, this thing (faith) you want to deny.

You write: “How many people have died in wars ‘in the name 
of God?’ " as if this is some sort of proof against God. 


 I know this will come off as arrogant, but, come on Paul, if you are going to keep up with this discussion, you really need to be a little more original than this. Apparently, you do not believe in “true and false” when it comes to religion. Is that the only category in which there is no “right and wrong” as far as you are concerned? I mean, if climate scientists lie and cheat on their reports, does that condemn all of climate science? If not, why?

You think that when a Muslim shouts, “God is great” and, then, takes 10 minutes to saw a screaming young American’s head off, that is an indictment against the truth of God and the utility of faith? Good gosh. How challenged is that argument? The god that allows a Muslim murderer to do such a thing, is no god at all . . . . just ask a Muslim who hates what she sees in the Jihadist rebellion.**

Finally and in a previous post, you criticized my use of a “circular argument.” Heck, the universe is circular and everything in it. I would have agreed with your criticism of circular logic, in my younger days, before I read comments made by a man named Thomas Torrance in a wonderful book entitled The Mediation of Christ. I am a big time student of Karl Barth (pronounced “Bart”). Torrance was a student of Barth.

Anyway, Torrance makes this point: “When we adopt this kind of approach, whether in natural science or in theology, we find that progress in understanding is necessarily circular” (p.3).

What we know about God is revealed by God, himself. Circular.

What we know about history is revealed by a study of history. Circular.

Science is about discovering the principles of science that “work,” using science to discover science; using revealed science to discover what is previously “unknown” but ALREADY there. We don’t invent a cure, we discover a cure, and, that is true because the pursuit of all such things is circular in nature.

Its all circular, buddy.

Update # 1 and end notes: 

* postulate. Understand that a postulate is an axiomatic truth that must be used, in this case, in a mathematical equation in order to solve for an answer. What is interesting to me, a simple minded Fundamentalist Reformed layman, is that a postulate has no mathematical explanation for itself. It just works. The resulting answer, is correct, because part of its solution "just works;" kind of like "God" as the solution in our world. We can offer evidence for his Presence, but, in the end, there is no explaining the Creator by the created. In the Book of Hebrews, "Faith . . . is the evidence of things unseen."  Faith becomes our evidence. The Hebrew writer was only making an observation that reality demands.   Again, faith is the evidence of things not seen, a conclusion drawn out of necessity.

And what of the first postulate, before the "Book of Postulates" was written. Some mathematical whiz kid couldn't solve a problem. He believed (faith) there was a solution, experimented (what faith drives us to do if we are involved with the "search") with sets of numbers until he found something that work. He could never prove his numbers, but, still, they worked and, in the end, that was proof enough. And so, he put his conclusions into the Book of Postulates, and sent the book on its way,  into scientific history,  with these words on the cover: "Trust me." Kind of like God.

** now is not the time to argue for the true God. I believe in the true God, btw. The point is this: "god" does not [even] work as a concept if it, the concept, does not take us away from ourselves and into an existentially "better place." Understand that if God is real, his concept is his shadow and even that, has great power.

Paul did not challenge the "unknown god," while in Athens. Rather he sought only to give him a definition. He did not challenge the sacrifices he was ordered to offer (Acts 21), knowing that the Sovereignty of God is so much larger than our misunderstandings concerning him. His compliance to the orders of James, gave God additional opportunity to work his will.

Update #2: The young man involved in this discussion, "Paul," wrote back. 

My conversation with him, I hope, demonstrates how the ontological gospel "works" in conversation, believing as I do, that a living God [hence my use of the word "ontology"] works in the proclamation of His Word. I am exited to know that God might take my words of proclamation and work his unique will. I have no idea what will come of this but, if nothing else, it has helped me as God works on my heart in my proclamation. --- J Smithson

Again,  I address "Paul,"
You wrote: “The difference between faith in science and faith in "God" is that science has a result, a conclusion. Something useful, WITH SUBSTANCE! actually comes from putting faith in science. What do you get out of faith in "God"? A sense of security in a scary world full of chaos? An entitlement to eternal life? Fairy tales? . . .”

As an after thought, I really must address this comment. Here is what I have to say about your observation:

I just saw an ad encouraging users to sue because of the ill effects of Lipitor. Science gave us Lipitor and the FDA gave us protections and assurance in their approval of that drug . . . . . and not that drug only but 100’s of drugs, over the years. [In the end, science failed.]

Science gives us our daily weather report. Assurance and consistency? Ha! You tell me!!!!

Ten years ago, [science told us that]  more than two eggs per day was a death sentence. Today? 5 or 6 will be just fine.

There is no consistency in the geo-evidence [science] presented for evolution. Fossilized remains, for example, dated for a certain geo-age are often found in strata that are millions of years too early or too late. The very rules for evolving species from one state to another are as misguided as a woman in a clothing store. Science has no consistent answer for the beginnings of times. There are dozens of variations to the “big bang” theory. Clearly, no one knows "for sure." Science cannot explain how particulate motion came to be or where matter, in its simplest form, came from. Consequently, science is stuck with the “eternity” of motion and matter while laughing at non-believers who chose to accept the eternity of God.

With our first return from the moon, we were told, “these finds (moon rocks) have changed some of the most basic considerations we have had for the beginnings of the universe,”  which meant, of course, all that crap I learned in college was suspect.

Science told us that in the summer following Katrina (2005) , there would be 17 major hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. There were none for three years.

Dolly the sheep, the first cloned animal, came after 274 failed efforts. While the cloning of Dolly was extraordinary, I do not forget the hundreds of failed scientific conclusions that did not work in real life, but looked great on paper.

Science gave us aluminum wiring and the government gave us its approval. Turns out that aluminum wiring was an absolute disaster.

Heck, Paul. talk about killing people. Science gave us the atomic and hydrogen bombs and the guns we shoot and the land mines we plant !!!!! 

Science gives us the basis for environmental law, yet those laws never seem to get the job done and are constantly being revised. Those twisty light bulbs are full of mercury. Ethanol is more a pollutant than fossil fuels and cost five times the energy it “saves.” The ban on DDT has killed 40 million in Africa.

With all of the above, you will pardon my sinicism as a relates to science.

On the other hand, while I cannot make a thoroughly consistent case for God  [the created will always fail to confirm or explain its creator],  your claims about my world are patently false. Paul, two of my boys, one a lawyer and one a doctor, both went through school as borderline atheists. One [the lawyer] was taught the law of situational ethics and the other [the doctor]  was taught a godless evolution. Your arguments were their arguments. Today? Each expresses a belief in God that allows for their individuality in thought and emotional preference. What made the difference in their lives? [Why did they move from your faith in nothing to their faith in God?]  The answer:   my faith [as their father], my consistency. 


In the midst of all my hypocrisy ( I am a thorough going dialectic !!!), my boys saw a consistency they came to believe was desirable.  [They saw God in me and became believers,  because of that faith].  It is not God who needs to be consistent. It is his believers.

My world of faith, me being from a different generation and era (I am 66 years old), was borne of a cookie cutter type expression, a fundamentalism that does not seem to work in this so-called post modern world. Back in the day, we all had to speak and think the same things. I never fit in that world. I have been kicked out of more churches than you have driven by. I was not allowed to graduate from seminary. I have enough college credit to have earned a PhD in biblical studies, but, instead, I am qualified as a building contractor . . . . . . . a change of plans forced on me by "believers in God."   Yet, I understand their “stilted” faith and accept it as evidence for the same God I serve.

You tell me what to say to a young woman full of sores because of a meth addiction. What does an atheist say to her? My words often give the opportunity to change her life and if change is no longer possible, to give her assurance as she faces the physical results of her addiction.

What does an athiest say to a family having lost loved ones in a shooting or a traffic accident?

Does an atheist even care about the young pastor who just got the crap kicked out of him by the power structure in his congregation or the head master of his seminary (my story is not unique to me)?

All Civilizations are rooted in a certain faith in God. To me, that is an unadulterated fact.

Seriously, why is chaos the alternative to “God,” and, why do you think that such is preferable?

You don’t believe the “golden rule” is a substantive social construct? Wow. Understand that this "golden rule" was not given to us by the godless unbeliever.  

If you understand the idea of a “ministry of reconciliation,” where man is encouraged to help man in good ways, what is the non-believers' alternative? Government?!! Good grief.

I would argue that a godless world has not worked at all. While you point to such things as the crusades, “people killing people in the name of God,” you have not approached my sense of the divine, which, by the way, does not allow for such things as the crusades. Because bad people do bad things has nothing to do with my faith. That includes the actions of those who have expelled me from seminary and church.

I have had my doubts and have experienced certain life changing inequities. Again, none of that speaks to the issue of faith in God. I can only hope that, in time, you will tire of the structured chaos in your life. Understand that I believe in God because I see no intellectual choice, among other considerations. The man and apostle, Paul, wrote of his own hypocrisy as a believer,  in a Bible passage we know as Romans 7, verses 14 through chapter 8 and verse 1.

You really need to read that passage. When I read it to a drug infested moron on meth or whatever, they always say, “Hey, this is me” and more often than not, that euphony is the beginning of their walk with their God.

[Without God], you’re an existentialist, dude.

Existentialism is always about “me.” Good luck with “me.” God, if revealed and accepted, is always about Him and that fact is the fact that gives believers direction and a degree of consistency.

I freely admit that I cannot “prove” God. You need to admit that your world is equally unsettling.

In the end, the difference between you and I is the difference between facing life with “me” and facing life with “God.”

End note:  and that was the end of our conversation.  I have not heard from Paul, since,  but I know he continues to check in,  onto my blog.