God's Hand in Nature
This is one of mankind's hardest questions, isn't it? It's an uncomfortable result on either side of that:Pros and Cons of ReligionSomewhere deep within the answer is, I suspect, a careful distinction between what God wills and what he permits. But those kind of thread-the-needle distinctions are fascinating to study but hardly comforting.
- If God intentionally wills each act of nature, then what are we to think when seemingly innocent people are injured or die?
- If God has no control, then what comfort can we draw by praying to a God that is powerless to affect the outcome of natural events?
You touched on Job. If you recall, the message of Job really was -- don't ask questions, only trust. The message seems to be that the "ways of God" are beyond our comprehension, so trying to delve into them is a fruitless exercise.
Distinctly uncomfortable and unsatisfying, I know.
But there's a part of me that understands, I think. I don't know anything, and I certainly can't claim to possess that level of trust, but I have a deep gut sense that it's the real answer.
I'll be honest ... I'm struggling a bit to get a handle on what you're getting at here. It seems like you're trying to form a kind of "scorecard" of religion; to determine a kind of "net benefit" of the thing. I'm not saying that's a bad thing to attempt. I'm just struggling to get my mind around it.Capacity for Choice
Part of me is yelling out: "Careful! Separate religion from faith." I view the two as quite distinct, with the former being utterly corrupt and the latter being the shining lamp on the hill. Even the Bible tends to cast down on religion -- time and again it condemns empty religious exercises. The key is empty, of course.
You wrote:Queen Insects
I see what you are going with this -> No matter how crappy life is, whatever disability you have or chemical imbalance in the brain that makes life seem untenable, forget all that (it's really your fault after all) rejoice and follow Jesus, however bad it is now, it will be infinitely worse in Hell, so never choose to willingly die.
No, not really. Somewhat, I guess, but not completely. I was going more for the extreme metaphysical question here -- does God create people that have no capacity to come to him whatever. Some -- strict Calvinists -- might say "Yes." But this is that "predestination vs. free-will" debate all over again, and I just can't discuss it cuz I just don't know.
When it comes to possessing the natural (chemical, whatever) ability to believe and have faith, I'm woefully deficient. Truly, I must be. But here's the question -- did God give me just enough so that I'd have at least the ability to ask for more? And with more comes more faith, and then more trusting obedience, which leads to more faith, etc., etc. Isn't that what discipleship is all about?
Interesting ... I hadn't thought of that angle.Ordinary Matter
I guess what I was thinking was this: as we move up the chain, to animals that appear to have the capacity for acting with some choice or intent, do we also see a corresponding capacity for selfishness. I don't see bees acting with any choice or conscious intent, rather they're entirely hard-wired ... but then what do I know about what goes on the brain of a bee? I'm operating on an assumption here that the "higher" forms of life have some increased ability to discern, to understand, and to act with deliberateness.
Let's limit the scope to the class mammalia. Do we see there any hint of community sacrifice when it comes to mating? Given that the Animal Planet network is all about showing male mammals fighting to either expand or protect their procreative opportunities, I ask again ... where in the world would the human trait of kindness and sacrifice (or altruism) come from? The easy answer is "From God" -- that is one of his "images," and we are made in His image. But if one rejects that and says we live in a purely natural world (no God anywhere), then I think the question is difficult to answer effectively.
You'd love for me to suggest that maybe ordinary matter doesn't exist, wouldn't you? I sense a trap here ... you're ready to spring something on me. :-)Pete Doherty
Look, my beef is purely this -- "science" is given way too much latitude to make definitive statements. If there's really a peer-review process, in today's 24-hour cable environment it has no effect because bold statements morph into "fact" long before some stodgy review process can take place. Scientists know that ... and those with an agenda -- and they are legion -- will exploit the media and the public's willingness to swallow whatever they say as truth.
There may very well be "dark matter." The mathematical models and whatnot may suggest it strongly. But the very criteria you use to reject a statement about some common aspect of human nature -- that it can't be scientifically evaluated so it's no more than an assumption -- applies to things like the question of the origin of the universe, or the existence and composition of dark matter, or parallel universes, or any of that stuff.
We will never, ever, ever know what actually happened at the start of the universe. We certainly can't know -- except by mathematically extrapolation -- that at one billionth of a second the temperature was 100 million Kelvin. And even that extrapolation is based on a ton of assumptions.
I just wish they'd admit it.
Who in the hell is he? I keep seeing these stories about him and drugs and arrests and Kate Moss ... I gather he's some kind of singer or guitarist in some band. Is the band any good, or did this guy achieve celebrity long before it was merited?
No comments:
Post a Comment