tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069200.post725276021781466143..comments2023-08-09T04:28:05.392-04:00Comments on A Pastor in the Parish: Strange Attractors: An Atheist, Creationism and FacebookGeekChurchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13734017463840940541noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069200.post-55277545259219942372012-11-20T13:22:33.516-05:002012-11-20T13:22:33.516-05:00Thanks all...
Yes Phillip, I believe we should i...Thanks all... <br /><br />Yes Phillip, I believe we should in some ways be UNapologetic about our reading of scripture. I'm not sure I want to use "polemic" but I think I understand what you mean. <br /><br />The other reality we must face about science, of course, is that no matter how we look at it, scientific investigation is about investigation and observation of a fallen world. This reality is difficult to discuss if our conversation partner doesn't believe the world is broken. So with all the wonders science brings us, it can only get us so far. <br /><br />Chuck, I think the comments about discussion with an atheist come out well when there is a relationship first. The conversation cannot be a means to an end. The conversation must be based on some common ground. Here especially I think the question came about because I had a position which differed from the stereotypical popular media portrayals. When Christians are shown to be thoughtful in how they respond to the world around us there is an opportunity and space for dialogue. <br /><br />Brandt, thank you for the link to your art. I found it incredibly interesting. I also appreciated your comments lower in your post about there being a place for religion in human life, albeit not in a public school classroom. As a scientist, I am distraught over the beating the word "theory" is taking. In everyday parlance it might have less certainty, but in science to reach the level of a theory a good deal of certainty must exist... even if there are skirmishes over minor details. Theories are from time to time overthrown, but not routinely. <br /><br />Another pastor friend of mine and I were having a conversation about Marco Rubio and other elected officials who might be Young Earth Creationists. His belief is that there is very little problem in the official being a YEC. Nothing gets in the way of say being a senator and a YEC Christian. In many ways, I agree. But when such a person steps in to dictate state policy on science education, the problem becomes that what they are failing to clearly teach what is science and what is not. Want to teach YEC in history or social studies? fine. But not science because it isn't. Otherwise let's line up the Enuma Elish, Native American creation myths, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as other viable alternatives. GeekChurchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13734017463840940541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069200.post-44646674465098879402012-11-20T10:11:52.248-05:002012-11-20T10:11:52.248-05:00Great post, Brian. Thanks for sharing your thought...Great post, Brian. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's so easy to forget that there are thoughtful well reasoned pastors out there these days. It also makes me wonder who this atheist is that's willing to enter into a real discussion, I find those hard to find these days, too.Chuck Steelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752674139617832756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069200.post-8791399531278289142012-11-20T09:42:59.829-05:002012-11-20T09:42:59.829-05:00I think that's a good response, Brian, and I a...I think that's a good response, Brian, and I also think we of the faith who are comfortable in speaking about scientific "things" (I was a biochemistry major) probably need to take the initiative in raising these arguments and lines of thinking. It's almost like we need to take a polemic, rather than an apologetic, path of discourse in today's culture. We need to take on the purely scientific worldview, rather than always trying to defend our own. I think the purely scientific worldview is now becoming the default point of view. I don't really have a clue about how to adopt this polemic, but it's often what I think about. <br />I also view this false dichotomy as answers to two different types of questions: proximate and ultimate. IN regards to creation, science tends to answer proximate questions (How did this come to be? What is this?) while faith attempts the ultimate (Why is all this here? Who is behind it?).Philliphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07362084518837697326noreply@blogger.com